Oral Answers to Questions

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Clean Drinking Water

Gordon Banks: What measures his Department is taking to provide clean drinking water in developing countries.

Hilary Benn: We will double our investment in water and sanitation in Africa, where the millennium development goal is most off-track, to £95 million a year by 2007-08, and then more than double our funding to £200 million a year by 2010-11.
	The Department for International Development's global call to action on water and sanitation is pushing for more investment, for money to be better spent and for the right structures to be put in place to help to make that happen.

Gordon Banks: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that the voluntary sector and the Churches have a significant role to play in providing clean water in developing countries? May I bring to his attention one such project, which is run by Auchterarder parish church in my constituency? Through its endeavours, it is providing clean drinking water to 1,000-plus people in the villages of Debele Kejima, south-west of Addis Ababa. Will he take time to come to Auchterarder to speak to Stewart Robertson and other people from Auchterarder parish church to see the good work that they have done and are planning, and to see their future plans on sanitation and hygiene education, which are vital to developing countries?

Hilary Benn: I will do my best to accept my hon. Friend's kind invitation to visit his constituency. I congratulate the members of the Auchterarder parish church on the efforts that they are making. In the fight to bring clean water and sanitation to more of our fellow human beings, we need all the help we can get.

Malcolm Bruce: As the Secretary of State will know, the Select Committee on International Development is about to publish a report on water and sanitation. Sanitation itself is often under-valued. It is key to achieving many of the millennium development goals. Will he undertake to ensure that his Department's money goes to training and educating people in developing countries to enable them to deliver appropriately water and sanitation and to enable the millennium development goals to be achieved?

Hilary Benn: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point. I look forward to receiving the report when it is published. People tend to focus on water and to forget about sanitation. What we really need are taps and toilets. He is right that education is important. That is why, in investing in education, we ensure that we invest in toilets in schools. As we know, without toilets, girls will often not go to school as they get older. Those programmes include education about the importance of washing hands. On a recent visit to Malawi to see one such programme, we saw a brand new toilet block that we helped to fund with our development assistance. There was a big sign over the seat that said, "Now wash your hands." That makes precisely the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes.

Joan Ruddock: Further to that question and answer, may I ask my right hon. Friend to recognise the role of women in African villages in the management of water and sanitation projects? Will he in particular commend the health extension workers scheme, which the Select Committee saw in Ethiopia? We are prepared to provide much more money, but it is also necessary to encourage African Governments to make that a priority within their own spending Departments.

Hilary Benn: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend on the last point. One of the puzzles in all this is why Governments in some developing countries have not got the message more loudly about the importance of clean water and sanitation. In my experience, as she says, it is women in villages and elsewhere who are most concerned about that matter, not surprisingly, as they spend most of their day fetching and carrying water. If girls have to do that, one of the consequences is that they cannot go to school. We know the impact that that loss of opportunity has on the lives of girls. I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to do all the things for which she asks.

Gary Streeter: I commend the Secretary of State for the work that he is doing on clean water. However, is it not true that the United Nations has 23 agencies dealing with water in one way or another? Would it not be better if there was much more focus among the donor communities and the organisations trying to help in that situation, so that we could really try to tackle the problem and some of the 6,000 children who die every day of diarrhoea would not have to die?

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman is right. That is why, in answer to the original question, I said that we need to get the right structures in place. This year's "Human Development Report" was all about water. It was a cracking report. First, we need one every year to keep our eye on the ball. Secondly, we need the international community to come together and say, "What are the gaps? How are we going to fill them?" Thirdly, directly relating to the hon. Gentleman's point, we are arguing that in each country there should be one UN body that takes the lead. As a Government, we will put our money through the one UN body that is nominated in each country. That would be a powerful incentive to the UN system to get its act together. It is good that all those bodies take an interest, but when it comes to helping countries to make progress, they need one plan, one body and one way in which the international community provides help.

Anne Snelgrove: My right hon. Friend will be aware from the correspondence that we have had of the concern of many of my constituents about water issues in developing countries, and I thank him for his response on water privatisation in particular. What have his Department's budgets been for water and sanitation over the past five years?

Hilary Benn: We have just published a further report looking at the total effect of our investment in water and sanitation, and in the last year for which the figures are available we spent bilaterally and multilaterally £242 million. I have a lot of correspondence about water and sanitation, which I greatly welcome. When it comes to public, private or community-led provision, I am interested in investing more of our money in what works to bring clean water to people, and that is where we should put our effort.

Lynne Featherstone: Is the Secretary of State aware that Norway has withdrawn its funding for the public-private infrastructure advisory facility, because its projects involving water have so often failed and been so widely criticised? How does the Secretary of State scrutinise the use of UK taxpayers' money? If we are unable to do so effectively, is he likely to withdraw British funding from the PPIAF?

Hilary Benn: The PPIAF is having a real impact, not just in relation to water, but in other areas. The one example that I can think of is that it has helped to improve the availability of mobile phones in Afghanistan, which is good for helping the economy there to grow and develop. As I said a moment ago, in the end I am interested in investing money in what works. There are examples of private sector water provision that work and there are spectacular failures. There are examples of public provision that work and there are those that have been spectacular failures. The conclusion that I draw from that is that it does not matter so much whether it is one or the other, we should be putting cash, effort and time into what really makes a difference. I will assess our contribution to the PPIAF on that basis.

Andy Reed: Hon. Members have come up with many useful suggestions that will improve the situation and my right hon. Friend understands the issues of water pretty well, but does he agree with Tearfund, which in its report "Making every drop count" states:
	"But, first and foremost, 'quantity' of finance issues stand out as being absolutely paramount to the problem of increasing coverage in the country."—
	in this particular case referring to Ethiopia? All the improvements would make a difference, but can he assure me and other hon. Members that he will make every effort internationally to pump up the amount of money that is available to tackle the situation, so that we get somewhere near the 2015 millennium development goals.

Hilary Benn: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. That is exactly why in Africa where the problem is greatest, as I told the House a moment ago, we will double and then double again our investment. We need more investment, but we also need to help countries to be able to spend it. Apart from rural areas, the big challenge will be to provide clean water and sanitation to the growing cities and towns of the developing world, because in the next 50 years, first in Asia and then in Africa, that is where a majority of people will be coming to live. Just as in the 19th century in Britain local authorities were responsible for providing the sewers and putting in the taps, we need to find ways of getting more funding to local authorities in developing countries to make the investment and to regulate the provision of water and sanitation, because it is on them that the burden of dealing with the problem will fall.

Mark Simmonds: I have recently observed in Bangladesh that it is possible to make progress on water and sanitation with, for example, microcredit schemes, enabling the manufacture of sanitation facilities in small, rural communities. The Secretary of State has admitted that DFID has not performed on the issue and has taken its eye off the ball. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) rightly pointed out, the UN has 23 unco-ordinated agencies working on water and sanitation, and the EU water initiative has been excruciatingly slow and mired in bureaucracy. For the sake of the 2.6 billion people who do not have access to water and sanitation, what steps is DFID taking to improve its performance, international coherence and donor co-ordination to ensure the replication of such schemes across the developing world?

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman might give a bit of credit for the change that has been taking place over the past couple of years. It was the international community that took its eye off the ball, but that is beginning to change too. The World Bank is now investing more money, in part supported by our efforts, and we have a large programme in Bangladesh, which I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman had a chance to see.
	The EU water initiative has been pretty patchy. Much more impressive is the EU water facility, because that allows countries to bid for funding to invest in the kind of things that I was talking about a moment ago, both rounds of which have been oversubscribed. In the global call for action, I am now arguing that we should embed funding from the EU in an EU water facility on a permanent basis through the next round of the European development fund, because it is about increasing the quantity of investment and about putting the right structures in place. That is why at the World Bank spring meetings we will have a gathering, at which Paul Wolfowitz will be present, in order to make progress.

Africa (Sustainable Forestry)

Paddy Tipping: What steps he is taking to increase sustainable forestry in Africa.

Gareth Thomas: We are committing more than £73 million for forestry work in Africa, including £50 million announced last week by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for a Congo basin forest fund. Our funding is helping to improve governance and secure environmental benefits, and potentially could help to safeguard the livelihoods of more than 50 million poor people.

Paddy Tipping: Does the Minister accept that one of the important steps that could be taken is for the Government and the wider public sector to buy only legal and sustainable timber? Is he confident that the central point of expertise on timber procurement is properly resourced and that its messages are widely understood across the public sector?

Gareth Thomas: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is much that the Government, through public procurement, can do to send strong signals about the need to use sustainable and legal sources of timber. At central level, the Government have set an example by setting out through the CPET what we want to see happen. We need to work with local authorities to help them see the benefits in that direction, and we need to encourage other Governments across the European Union and across Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries to do so, too. Yesterday, I met my Norwegian and Swedish counterparts and we are encouraging them to look at exactly that issue.

Michael Fabricant: The Minister is right to say that there is huge importance in maintaining forestry—quite apart from anything else, to stop land slips and other forms of erosion. Has he had any meetings with the Waitrose Foundation, which is doing valuable work in southern Africa training people not only in horticulture and maintaining farms, but in sustainable forestry?

Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight one particular benefit of forests. He may know that about 2 billion people worldwide depend on forests in some shape or form, so not only do donors and development agencies such as ours have a responsibility, we also need to work with the public sector, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) said, and with the private sector, to which the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) referred. I have not yet met members of the Waitrose Foundation, but if he wants to bring them to see me, I shall be happy to meet them.

Betty Williams: My hon. Friend will be aware of the Secretary of State's visit to the university of Wales, Bangor last year. When considering sustainable forestry in Africa, will he look at the work being undertaken at the university of Wales, Bangor on the impact on forests of climate change and elevated carbon dioxide levels?

Gareth Thomas: I welcome the work that is taking place at Bangor and I know that my right hon. Friend's visit was useful. I will of course discuss with him the research benefits that were explained to him, as my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) described. We need more effort from public sector and private sector bodies in terms of research into the importance of deforestation and what we can do to counter it. We need to work with bodies in the private sector and with other Governments around the world to step up the effort to combat deforestation.

British Aid

David Burrowes: What steps he is taking to promote the independent evaluation of British aid.

Angela Watkinson: What steps he is taking to promote the independent evaluation of British aid.

Hilary Benn: UK aid is subject to external scrutiny through independent monitoring by the Select Committee on International Development, audit by the National Audit Office and peer review by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. DFID's policies and country programmes are evaluated by external experts and findings are published. However, we can and should go further, so I intend to establish a mechanism to ensure more independent evaluation of DFID's impact and I will inform the House of my proposals in due course.

David Burrowes: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. Assuming that he wishes to see recipient countries spend aid in an effective and accountable manner, when the Department is extending its aid reach into fragile states with often limited democratic credentials, why are the Government not doing more to show that they are responding and producing external scrutiny? Given that the Secretary of State says that the quality of governance has a huge impact on development, surely it is time for the Government to get its own house in order.

Hilary Benn: I hope that the hon. Gentleman listened to the answer that I just gave before asking a supplementary question that he may have written before he heard what I had to say. I accept entirely that we can do more to ensure that there is independent evaluation of the work that we are doing, but there is a considerable amount of scrutiny currently and in the more difficult places in which we work we take seriously our responsibility to ensure that we can demonstrate an impact. That is why, in those cases, we often do not give direct budget support, but provide assistance through programmes and projects in other ways.

Angela Watkinson: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement that he is going to follow Conservative party proposals to have an independent aid watchdog in this country. Does he agree that as the Department for International Development is set to double its budget, we owe the British taxpayer a zero tolerance policy on corruption in aid budgets?

Hilary Benn: I agree with the hon. Lady. I take with the utmost seriousness my responsibility to ensure that every penny of our aid goes to where it is intended. Every Member of the House, regardless of what party they belong to, should be interested in ensuring that a rising aid budget has the best possible impact.

Hugh Bayley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that part of the business of scrutiny of aid in developing countries must be carried out by the Parliaments of those countries and their public accounts committees? Will the Secretary of State tell the House how his new governance fund will be used to strengthen the capacity of Parliaments to do that work and scrutiny, and will our National Audit Office look at their reports and use them in its independent audit of his Department's work?

Hilary Benn: I agree with my hon. Friend completely on that point. The governance and transparency fund that we are establishing will in part be used to support parliamentarians in building their capacity to hold their Governments to account. The Public Accounts Committee and the work of the National Audit Office are really good examples of how to do that. We enjoy the benefit of their wisdom and experience, and occasional probing from time to time. I do not see why our colleague parliamentarians and Ministers in developing countries should not enjoy the same experience.

Sally Keeble: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I hope that his Department will look in particular at evaluating the spend on orphans and vulnerable children. I wonder whether he would agree that the untying of aid from trade, and the introduction of the poverty focus by the Labour Government was probably the single most effective step in improving the effectiveness of UK aid.

Hilary Benn: I agree with my hon. Friend. They were important decisions, taken for exactly the right reasons. On spending on orphans and vulnerable children, one of the reviews that we have been carrying out has been into the impact of our approach to HIV and AIDS and that is one of the issues at which it has been looking.

Mark Lancaster: Some £50 million of unearmarked aid will be given to the Afghan reconstruction trust fund this year. Having been a part of the process of paying that aid, I know that it involves handling large bundles of cash and taking them down to the provinces in Afghanistan. Given the current levels of corruption to be found in some provinces in Afghanistan, what specific measures are in place today to ensure that that money is being well spent?

Hilary Benn: The most important measure that is in place is the Afghan reconstruction trust fund, which is managed by the World Bank on behalf of all the donors that put in funding, including the United Kingdom Government, and it pays out only in response to certified expenditure. What is that money being spent on? As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is being spent on helping to pay the salaries of teachers and other public servants who are trying to build the capacity of the Government of Afghanistan to respond to the needs of their people.

Andrew Mitchell: The Secretary of State is aware that, over the last year, we have been pressing the Government to set up a truly independent aid evaluation process, so we welcome the answer that he gave just now—although I hesitate to point out to him that he gave exactly the same answer two months ago. Will the Secretary of State accept that the issue is about not only aid effectiveness, but development effectiveness and demonstrating results and outcomes so that taxpayers can have confidence that their money is being well spent?

Hilary Benn: I do accept those latter points, which is precisely why I have informed the House today that I intend to set up a mechanism. I said two months ago that I was looking at proposals. One of the things that we are doing is assessing the experience of other countries, such as the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden, which have been addressing the same issue. It is important that we are all able to offer reassurance to the British public that Britain's aid is making a difference, as it is.

Andrew Mitchell: We congratulate the Secretary of State on adopting this Conservative proposal.
	Following cross-party support last year for the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke), the Secretary of State is required to report to Parliament on the impact of Government policies on development and developing countries across the range of relevant Government Departments. Will he tell the House how he is getting on with that process and when he expects to be able to report?

Hilary Benn: We are getting on fine and we will publish the outcome of that work in the Department's annual report, which will appear at the beginning of May.

Abolition of the Slave Trade

Anthony D Wright: How his Department is marking the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade.

Gareth Thomas: Last month, we published the booklet "Breaking the Chains", which highlights the ongoing need to fight slavery and the clear link between modern slaves and global poverty. In October, in partnership with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the International Labour Organisation and Anti-Slavery International, we will hold a conference to explore what further action we can take.

Anthony D Wright: I thank my hon. Friend for that response and commend the book to everyone. It is a sad reflection of society that it was just 200 years ago that we had to abolish slavery. However, it is also an indictment of today's society that slavery still exists in all forms, whether that is child slavery or human trafficking. In India, with the Dalit system, individuals are paid just 80p a day and have to try to survive on that pittance. Does my hon. Friend agree that we will need to do an awful lot more before we can say that slavery has truly been abolished?

Gareth Thomas: I agree that we have an awful lot more to do as an international community before we can start to say that modern slavery is coming to an end. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the specific circumstances of the Dalits in India. I hope that he will be reassured by our commitment to helping those Dalits to improve their circumstances through our efforts on primary education in India. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor committed a further £200 million of aid to invest in primary education, which is designed to help all Indian citizens, including Dalits, to access the education that they need.

Peter Bone: Does the Minister agree that the practical step that the Government could take to mark the 200-year anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade would be to create in this country a human traffic commissioner who would be independent of the Government, as has been done in the Netherlands, to deal with the equivalent of today's slave trade: human trafficking?

Gareth Thomas: There is a series of practical steps that the Government can take, and are taking, to address modern slavery. One of the most obvious things that we can do is to continue to address poverty in Africa and the Caribbean, as we are doing. It is one of the reasons why Labour Members have spent so much time and effort trying to secure a debt relief deal. One of the benefits of such a deal is that debt relief in Nigeria will help to pay for an extra 120,000 teachers so that we can get another 3.5 million children in school. Such initiatives are probably the surest way to help to tackle modern slavery.

Darfur

Tony Lloyd: What assistance he plans to give to the African Union in Darfur.

Hilary Benn: The UK has committed £67 million to the African Union mission in Sudan since it was set up, including £35 million in this financial year. Our funds have covered vehicles, ground fuel and troop airlift, as well as personnel costs. We are ready further to support the political process, which is being led by the AU and the United Nations, both financially and politically. We are also pressing other donors to do more.

Tony Lloyd: The pre-condition for humanitarian assistance in Darfur must be a proper resolution of the military conflict. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Sudanese Government are both moving arms into Darfur and allowing their military planes to be disguised as being part of the UN humanitarian mission? In that context, is it not time for the international community to carry out proper military enforcement of the no-fly zone?

Hilary Benn: I share the concerns that my hon. Friend expresses about what is going on in Darfur. It is precisely for that reason that we are drafting a tough new UN Security Council resolution that will cover sanctions against individuals, improved monitoring of the violence and the extension of the arms embargo. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, we are looking at the capacity to ensure that planes cannot be used to bomb the innocent civilians of Darfur.

John Bercow: Given that the new United Nations humanitarian co-ordinator, John Holmes, has warned that morale among aid workers is so fragile that one security incident could prompt a humanitarian collapse, endangering the lives of tens of thousands of refugees and internally displaced people, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what particular steps he and his Department are taking to avert that grisly prospect?

Hilary Benn: We are continuing to provide significant humanitarian assistance. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are the second largest donor in the crisis in Darfur. The second thing that we are doing is giving support to John Holmes in his task to get the Government of Sudan to stop putting obstacles in the way of the humanitarian effort. That is the goal that he was pursuing during his visit this week. The third thing that we are doing is putting pressure on the Government and the rebels to come around the negotiating table, because it is the banditry and general lawlessness that is the principal cause of the low morale and the difficulties that the humanitarian community is facing.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Lee Scott: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 28th March.

Tony Blair: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Lee Scott: Will the Prime Minister please look into the fact that my constituents in Ilford, North are faced with the prospect of having to travel for 35 minutes by car or for more than an hour by public transport to get to the nearest accident and emergency department under the present proposals?

Tony Blair: I appreciate entirely the hon. Gentleman's concern and he will know that no firm proposals have been made yet. His local health service has made a set of propositions or is engaged in consultations, and those—as it has said—will be based on the safety of constituents, especially those using emergency services. It is important that we recognise that some 26 public hospital schemes have been opened in the strategic health authority that covers his area, with a value of £1.7 billion. There are three schemes under construction and no fewer than 25 local improvement finance trust—LIFT—schemes for local services have been opened. So I understand his concern, but no decisions have yet been made on the proposals. The important thing will be to ensure that people get the very best care possible. The hon. Gentleman will also, I hope, recognise that sometimes it is in the interests of those who have suffered strokes, heart disease or trauma to be able to go to the best specialist services available, with the best paramedic care.

George Howarth: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government on the patience that they have shown in helping to bring about the restoration of devolution in Northern Ireland? May I also congratulate all of the parties in Northern Ireland on having the courage to take hold of the power that the people in Northern Ireland have placed in their hands? Does my right hon. Friend agree that alongside power goes responsibility, including the responsibility to set a reasonable level of public expenditure?

Tony Blair: I agree entirely with what my right hon. Friend says and I thank him for his thanks to me and others engaged in that. I would however like to give my thanks to those who have shown such leadership in Northern Ireland and to the people who have shown and decided in the recent election that they want a future for Northern Ireland in which people from different perspectives can come together and share power on the basis of peace. That is a sensible and lasting solution for the people of Northern Ireland and I know that it is one that enjoys broad support across the United Kingdom.

David Cameron: May I join the right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) in congratulating the Prime Minister on bringing the negotiations to a successful conclusion and also those who are taking part in power sharing? It has been difficult for them, but they are doing a brave and, I believe, a great thing.
	There can be no excuse for Iran taking our Royal Navy personnel captive in Iraqi waters and holding them prisoner. They should be released immediately. The Prime Minister said that negotiations were entering "a different phase". While he clearly must not say anything that jeopardises our personnel, can he tell us what that might involve?

Tony Blair: I am sure that it is the position of everyone in this House that our thoughts are with our servicemen and the servicewoman and their families. Their safe return is our paramount concern.
	However, let me be very clear as to what has happened here. These personnel were patrolling in Iraqi waters under a United Nations mandate. Their boarding and checking of the Indian merchant vessel was routine. There was no justification whatever, therefore, for their detention; it was completely unacceptable, wrong and illegal. We had hoped to see their immediate release. This has not happened. It is now time to ratchet up the diplomatic and international pressure in order to make sure that the Iranian Government understand their total isolation on this issue.
	This morning, we published the details of the exact co-ordinates and position of our forces when detained. They were 1.7 nautical miles within Iraqi territorial waters. The master of the civilian merchant vessel has confirmed this. Initially, on Saturday, the Iranian Government gave us their co-ordinates for the incident. Those co-ordinates turned out to confirm that the vessel was indeed within Iraqi waters. After this was pointed out to them, they subsequently gave a different set of co-ordinates, this time within Iranian waters.
	We are now in contact with all our key allies and partners to explain the incontrovertible fact that the seizure of the 15 British personnel was utterly without foundation and to step up the pressure on the Iranian Government to deliver their immediate release.

David Cameron: I know that the whole House, and I believe the country, will be grateful for that very full answer. As the Prime Minister said, our service personnel were operating under a UN mandate. Does he agree that, as a result, the UN should make it crystal clear to Iran that the present situation is completely unacceptable? Can he tell us the steps that he is taking to mobilise support in the UN and among our allies in the EU and NATO, and among sympathetic Gulf states, to maximise the pressure on Iran?

Tony Blair: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support. We have been speaking extensively to all our key allies and partners. I spoke this morning to Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey, who has been in touch with the Iranian Government. The German Chancellor this afternoon in her speech to the European Parliament will speak on behalf of the European Union, as Germany has the presidency, and make it clear that the European Union as a whole finds the situation entirely unacceptable and believes that these people should be released. We are also in close contact with our partners and other members of the United Nations Security Council, and of course, next week the UK assumes the presidency of the UN Security Council.
	We are in touch with everyone within Europe, NATO, the United Nations and our key allies in the Gulf region. We will do everything we can to make the Iranian Government realise that this is a situation that can only result in one sensible and fair outcome—the release of people who were merely doing their job under a United Nations mandate.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister says that there is absolutely no doubt that when our service personnel were taken, they were in Iraqi territorial waters. Given that UK forces are operating all the time in Iraqi waters and they are all operating under a UN mandate, will he make sure that they have clear rules of engagement?  [ Interruption. ]

Tony Blair: No, I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of rules of engagement, because I think that it is important that we deal with it. First, I should make it absolutely clear that the rules of engagement do allow our forces to take whatever measures are necessary in their own self-defence. However, in my view, it was entirely sensible that those on the spot conducted themselves and behaved in the way that they did. They were coming down off the merchant civilian vessel, having checked it, and they were then surrounded by six Iranian vessels, which were heavily armed. If they had engaged in military combat at that stage, there would undoubtedly have been severe loss of life. I think that they took the right decision and did what was entirely sensible. Of course, we always keep the rules of engagement under constant review to make sure that we are carrying out our functions and protecting our people properly, but my understanding is that those who were out there and patrolling these waters believed that the rules of engagement are right.
	It is important that we understand one other additional fact: by the time HMS Cornwall knew that our forces had been detained unlawfully by the Iranians, they were in Iranian waters, and again military engagement would have put a lot of lives at risk. I think that they took the right decision, and it is important that such decisions are left to people on the ground.

Jimmy Hood: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the tax-and- spend policies of the Scottish National party for the coming Scottish Parliament elections, which would cost hard-working families in Scotland £5,000 each? What advice does he have for those who are tempted to follow the SNP into the abyss of separation, divorce and the break-up of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the Prime Minister that the question is out of order.

Menzies Campbell: May I add my congratulations to those who have been responsible for making such progress in Northern Ireland?
	In relation to Iran, I content myself simply by offering my support to the Government in their efforts to ensure the early release of our marines and sailors.
	Why is it, as the Government's own report demonstrated this week, that the poorest fifth of people in this country have a lower share of national income than they did in 1997?

Tony Blair: As I was trying to point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman last week, we have raised some 600,000 children out of relative poverty, and, I think, almost 2 million out of absolute poverty, but the percentage rise in incomes for the bottom 40 per cent., between 1979 and 1997, was way below that of the top 40 per cent. That has been reversed over the past few years, and a combination of a strong economy, tax credits and the minimum wage have delivered, for the first time in years, real reductions in poverty.

Menzies Campbell: If the Prime Minister will not answer that question, perhaps I might try another. After last week's Budget, does he accept that those earning less than £18,500 a year who are not eligible for tax credits will have to pay an increase in income tax? How fair is that?

Tony Blair: Again, if I could ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to look at the matter in the round, over the past 10 years those families have seen their income rise in percentage terms by more than the top people.  [Interruption.] The Tories may shout, but they opposed every one of the measures to reduce poverty in our country. As a result of the investment in tax credits, families with children, in particular, have benefited enormously over the past few years. I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we have to do even more. That is why the measures announced by the Chancellor will actually take an additional 200,000 children out of poverty. All the time, as the economy grows, we have to put even more resources into tackling child poverty. This Government are doing it; the last Conservative Government did not.

Anne Begg: As a result of last week's Budget, by 2009 Scottish families will, on average, be £200 a year better off, and for poorer families the figure rises to £350. What does my right hon. Friend think will happen to the income of those same families if, by 2009, Scotland has embarked on the road to independence?

Tony Blair: There is no doubt at all that the problem is not merely that taking Scotland out of the United Kingdom will lead to a huge economic risk for Scotland and for Scottish industry, which is so closely connected with the UK economy, but the fact that the tax and spending plans of the SNP would mean that families would be £5,000 a year worse off. In addition, the SNP has a 3p local income tax, which would also deliver lower living standards for precisely the people whom my hon. Friend is talking about.

Stewart Jackson: Yesterday, I read that Sir Alistair Graham said that the Prime Minister had "undermined trust" in politicians and had "failed on ethical standards", and that radical changes are needed to the ministerial code. In view of that, does he feel qualified to offer his successor advice on reviewing the code, given the lamentably low standards of public probity that the Prime Minister has presided over in the past 10 years?

Tony Blair: I am afraid that I completely and totally disagree with Sir Alistair Graham. He is entitled to his opinion, but I am entitled to mine.

Geraldine Smith: The Government have done a superb job in regenerating our inner cities, but is it not now time to put the same energy, commitment and resources into regenerating British seaside resorts such as Morecambe and Blackpool?

Tony Blair: I agree that it is indeed important that we regenerate our seaside resorts. That is precisely why the regeneration package for Blackpool, for example, is so important, but all our seaside resorts benefit from a strong economy that has seen low interest rates, low unemployment and high employment, and not the disastrous boom and bust policies of the 18 years before us.

David Cameron: In his Budget, the Chancellor put up the rate of corporation tax faced by every small business in the country. Why?

Tony Blair: Because overall it was better for business that we cut —[ Interruption. ] Yes, overall it was better for business that we cut the level of corporation tax, and we have now taken it down from 33p in the pound to 28p in the pound. We have also taken capital gains for small businesses down from 40 per cent. to 10 per cent., and that is why there has been such growth in small businesses in the past 10 years.

David Cameron: Someone needs to tell the Prime Minister that there are two rates of corporation tax, and the one for small businesses is going up. It will be paid by every firm in the country. When it comes to large companies, the Chancellor followed our advice and cut the rate and simplified the system, but when it comes to small companies, he did the opposite—he increased the rate and he has made the system more complicated—so why is he punishing small firms?

Tony Blair: We are not punishing small firms. As I just pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman, as a result of the tax measures that the Chancellor has announced over the years —[ Interruption. ] Actually, according to the international surveys, the United Kingdom became the biggest recipient of foreign direct investment of any country in the world.  [ Interruption. ] Well, small business also benefit from that, and if we look, for example, at the rate paid on capital gains by small business, when we came to power it was 40 per cent. We took it down to 10 per cent., which is a huge boost for small business. Let me say something else to the right hon. Gentleman: small businesses, like large businesses, benefit from a strong economy. Over the past 10 years, we have delivered a strong economy. The only experience that he has had as someone running our economy —[ Interruption. ]—yes, it was being present on Black Wednesday: hardly a great recommendation.

David Cameron: What business is interested in are the tax rates that it is going to have to pay now, and they are going up. The Prime Minister quotes the foreign direct investment figures, but does he not know that half of that is accounted for by one company—Shell—undergoing restructuring? Perhaps he ought to bother to read the Budget. The Forum of Private Business said that it would "further burden" them. The British Chambers of Commerce says that it is
	"damaging for small and medium sized business".
	The Federation of Small Businesses said that those businesses feel "dismay", and two thirds of small businesses say that the Budget will have a damaging effect. I choose to believe them, rather than him. The right hon. Gentleman has only 12 weeks left as the First Lord of the Treasury. Instead of the pointless search for the Environment Secretary's backbone, why does he not use that power and withdraw that tax hike?

Tony Blair: The reason why we got into the economic problems that we did when the right hon. Gentleman was working at the Treasury was that the last Conservative Government promised tax cuts and spending rises at the same time. What is his proposal now? Exactly the same—tax cuts and spending rises, which will lead, as they did then, to precisely the same result. We have a very, very clear choice between a Chancellor who has delivered the strongest economy on record—

Hon. Members: Where is he?

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a lot of shouting. Mr. Stuart, you are doing very well at the shouting, so perhaps you can be quiet and set us all a good example.

Tony Blair: As I said, we have a choice between a Chancellor who has the strongest economic record of any Chancellor in any main country over the past 10 years and a Conservative party that was a disaster economically when it was last in power and would be a disaster again if it ever got its hands back on the economy.

John McFall: May I tell the Prime Minister that businesses in my constituency have welcomed the Budget enthusiastically, with the reduction in corporation tax, and that individuals in the constituency, particularly pensioners, have welcomed the increase in the threshold for tax and savings. However, there is deep concern among a number of my constituents that that economic prosperity will not prevail. What reassurance can the Prime Minister give me that after May constituents will not be faced with extra taxes, and that we will ensure the continuation of that prosperity?

Tony Blair: Of course, as my right hon. Friend rightly implies, the single most important thing for all businesses is a strong and stable economy. The thing that wrecked so many businesses in the late 1980s and early 1990s was the second recession under the Conservatives. It is important to keep that stability going, which is why we reject the tax and spending policies of the Conservatives. Also, what would be a disaster for local business in Scotland is a 3p on income tax local rate.

Greg Clark: Last week's Budget cost Britain's charities £70 million a year in Gift Aid. The Chancellor did not mention that in his Budget speech, he failed to mention it in the Red Book, and he failed to mention it in any of the Budget documentation. Was the Prime Minister informed, and does he approve?

Tony Blair: I approve entirely of the Budget. Over the past few years, as a result of what the Chancellor has done, we have given enormous support to charities— [Interruption.] Oh yes, and what is more, we will give further support to charities in one very important way. We will allow charities to perform much more of the tasks previously done by the traditional public sector—for example, in the management of offenders. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues voted against that when the Bill came before the House.

Mark Hendrick: My right hon. Friend will be aware that by next year NHS spending will have tripled since the Government came to office. We have 85,000 more nurses and 32,000 more doctors.  [Interruption.] Is it not true that the NHS is safe in this Government's hands?

Tony Blair: Opposition Members were asking, "Where has the money gone?" Let me tell them. We now have the lowest waiting lists and lowest waiting times on record. When we first came to office, people were often dying while waiting for their operation on the national health service. Today, they get it. We have had 100,000 fewer deaths from heart disease. That is where the money has gone. We are saving tens of thousands of lives in better and faster cancer treatment. That is where the money has gone, and it has gone, yes, in better pay for nurses, doctors and consultants—proposed by us and opposed by the Conservatives.

Philip Dunne: While the Prime Minister plans his lecture tour, is he aware that many servicemen and women whom he has committed to active tours overseas have returned in a traumatised state to barracks, alongside troops training to go on active deployment to the very same theatres? With five years until Selly Oak is fully operational, he surely still has the time to delay closure of the Royal Naval hospital Haslar next week, and to commission specialist military units in designated hospitals to provide proper treatment to our troops.

Tony Blair: What the hon. Gentleman says is not correct. It does nothing for the morale of our armed forces for it to be said that they are not getting proper treatment— [Interruption.] Perhaps he will just listen to me for a moment. It is important for our forces that their families are not worried by completely inaccurate stories that their loved ones do not get the proper care that they should have. If the hon. Gentleman visits Selly Oak, staff there will tell him exactly what they are doing, with a military managed ward and the best specialist care. They will also explain to him why the decision taken by the last Conservative Government, though rightly, to close down Haslar is necessary and correct, because of the degree of specialist treatment that the troops need when they are severely injured. It is not correct to say that they are not getting excellent care from the Defence Medical Services, which are superb, and also from the general NHS staff, who are utterly dedicated.

Gwyn Prosser: No one wants too much central Government control, but what can we do about Conservative county councils like Kent, which has just squandered £300,000 supporting an airline that never took off, wants to set up a television station of its own, and is paying its chief executive more money than the Prime Minister?

Tony Blair: That is an interesting thought for the future. Let me say to my hon. Friend that there is a very clear remedy in those circumstances, which is to vote Labour in the local elections.

Damian Green: The Prime Minister just talked about better and faster cancer treatment. The Royal College of Radiologists says that cancer victims should receive radiotherapy treatment within four weeks of having an operation. A constituent of mine who has been a nurse in the NHS for 40 years was operated on January and is now having to wait 12 weeks before she gets her radiotherapy treatment—a common waiting time in Kent. Can he explain why, in this vital life-saving area into which he has poured lots of public money, things for my constituents are getting worse, not better?

Tony Blair: Obviously, I cannot comment on the individual case because I do not know about it, but I am happy to look into it. Given that the health service treats 1 million people every 36 hours, I am not suggesting, in any shape or form, that there are not people who do not get the care that they deserve or do not still have to wait too long. However, let me point out that within the hon. Gentleman's strategic health authority there are over 4,000 more nurses, 600 more consultants, 400 more GPs, and 450 more dentists, if I may say. Moreover, there has been a massive investment in the health service that has meant that overall, whereas thousands of people used to wait 12 months, 18 months or more, now virtually no one waits more than six months.
	I am happy to look into the individual case that the hon. Gentleman mentions, but the fact is that the whole business of waiting and access to the health service over the past 10 years has been transformed. We need to go further, and we will—by the end of next year, we will have an 18-week maximum waiting time for in-patients and out-patients, including diagnostics, and an average of seven to eight weeks, in effect ending traditional waiting in the national health service. There may still be cases, which are obviously wrong if they exist, where people are waiting too long, but it is surely important to balance that up with the overall picture, which is immensely positive.

David Taylor: In a statement to mark the 50th anniversary of the European Union, the Pope said that Europe's moral, cultural and historical values were forged by Christianity, that the EU was denying those facts, and that any detachment from its Christian roots by Europe was a form of apostasy, not only from God but from itself. As a leading Christian in this place, would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the Pope's view?

Tony Blair: Frankly, I would not. I do not think that the Pope needs me as his spokesman, so it is better that he makes his statement and I make mine. I would say that we should be immensely proud of the values represented by the European Union, where we now have a unified Europe, east and west. Without in any way detracting from our firm, independent sovereignty as a nation, I think that the European Union has been good for this country over the past 30 years and good for Europe over its lifetime.

William McCrea: Does the Prime Minister accept that a commitment to exclusively peaceful means must of necessity include the dismantling of all terrorist structures, including the IRA army council?

Tony Blair: The Independent Monitoring Commission is the body that is charged with deciding whether that commitment to exclusively peaceful and non-violent means is being adhered to. As the hon. Gentleman will know, it has a further report coming in the next few weeks. However, it has made its statement that the IRA is indeed abiding by that principle, and I think that it has the people best placed to make the judgment.

Mike Hall: My right hon. Friend will recall that on 21 March 1993 the IRA exploded two bombs in Bridge street in Warrington, killing Johnathan Ball and Tim Parry. My close friends, Colin and Wendy Parry, have worked tirelessly over the past 14 years to build community relations in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, and have made a unique contribution to the peace process. May I ask my right hon. Friend to redouble his efforts and work very closely with the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) to ensure that the foundations that were laid on Monday result in a permanent peace in Northern Ireland and that Johnathan and Timothy did not die in vain?

Tony Blair: I pay tribute to what my hon. Friend has done on this issue over the years. Now is an appropriate moment, even as we look forward in Northern Ireland, to remember Johnathan Ball, Tim Parry and also Bronwyn Vickers, who I believe was injured in the explosion and died some time later. We extend our sympathy to the families of all the victims of the troubles. In respect of Colin and Wendy Parry, they have shown a quite extraordinary spirit of forgiveness and determination to promote reconciliation. They can be very proud of the work that they have done over the years. It is interesting that the spirit that they represent has, ultimately, triumphed over hatred, discord and conflict. Surely that should give us hope for the future.

Alex Salmond: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. He is an hon. Member of this House and must be heard.

Alex Salmond: May I strike a note of consensus with the Prime Minister? On Monday, he said that the election campaign in Scotland was going "brilliantly"—I agree with him. In his latest brilliant foray into Scotland, he attacked Sir George Mathewson, the former chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland as being "self-indulgent" and suggested that he was not a "real" business man. Will the Prime Minister tell me what is the more self-indulgent—someone of vast experience who speaks up for independence as being good for the Scottish economy and society, or is it someone who proffers vast loans in the hope of buying a seat in the House of Lords?

Tony Blair: I did not criticise Sir George as a business man at all, but I criticised his view on independence, which I am entitled to do. Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman why I believe that separation is so wrong. Scotland benefits from the Union, just as England benefits from it. We are able to have a stronger Scottish economy with 200,000 more jobs and Scottish unemployment below the UK average for the first time in a generation. The hon. Gentleman's policies would not just tear Scotland out of the United Kingdom— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was heard because I allowed it; he will now listen to the Prime Minister.

Tony Blair: Of course, the polls indicate that this is a real fight. People in Scotland will have to make up their minds whether they want the policy that the hon. Gentleman represents, which is separation—with all the risks that it entails, with tax and spending policies that would mean a £5,000 hit for average households and a 3p local income tax—or whether they want to continue with what has happened to the Scottish economy and living standards over the last 10 years, which has meant Scotland's unemployment being below the UK average for the first time, 200,000 extra jobs and a booming Scottish economy. That is the choice and I look forward to debating with the hon. Gentleman from now until polling day.

Iranian Seizure of Royal Navy Personnel

Margaret Beckett: I would like to make a statement about the current situation regarding the 15 British service personnel detained by Iranian forces on Friday of last week, and say that the Government are doing all they can to ensure that they are released immediately. I should say at once—I am sure I speak for the whole House—that our thoughts and prayers at this moment are with all our detained personnel in Iran and their families.
	I would like to begin by explaining the facts of what happened last Friday and the actions we have taken since, and to share with the House some of the details about the location of the incident on which the Ministry of Defence briefed this morning. At approximately 0630 GMT on 23 March, 15 British naval personnel from HMS Cornwall were engaged in a routine boarding operation of a merchant vessel in Iraqi territorial waters in support of Security Council resolution 1723 and of the Government of Iraq. They were then seized by Iranian naval vessels.
	HMS Cornwall was conducting routine maritime security operations as part of a multinational force coalition taskforce operating under a United Nations mandate at the request of the Iraqi Government. The taskforce's mission was to protect Iraqi oil terminals and to prevent smuggling. The boarding party had completed a successful inspection of a merchant ship 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when they and their two boats were surrounded by six Iranian vessels and escorted into Iranian territorial waters.
	On hearing this news, I immediately consulted the Prime Minister and the Secretary State for Defence, and asked my permanent under-secretary to summon the Iranian ambassador to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We set out our three demands to the ambassador: information on the whereabouts of our people; consular access to them; and to be told the arrangements for their immediate release. Cobra met that afternoon, as it has done every day since. On 24 March my colleague the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Lord Triesman, held a further meeting with the ambassador to repeat our demands. He has had several such meetings since that date.
	At that first meeting the Iranian ambassador gave us, on behalf of his Government, the co-ordinates of the site where that Government claimed that our personnel had been detained. They were not, of course, where we believed that the incident took place but we took delivery of them as the statement of events of the Government of Iran. On examination, the co-ordinates supplied by Iran are themselves in Iraqi waters.
	On Sunday 25 March, I spoke to Minister Mottaki, the Iranian Foreign Minister, as I did again yesterday. In my first conversation, I pointed out that not only did the co-ordinates for the incident as relayed by HMS Cornwall show that the incident took place 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters, but that the grid co-ordinates for the incidents that the Iranian authorities had provided to our embassy on Friday 23 March and to Lord Triesman on Saturday 24 March also showed that the incident had taken place in Iraqi waters. I suggested to the Iranian Foreign Minister that it appeared that the whole affair might have been a misunderstanding which could be resolved by immediate release.
	In Iran, our ambassador, Geoffrey Adams, has met senior Iranian officials on a daily basis to press for immediate answers to our questions. He has left the Iranian authorities in no doubt that there is no justification for the Iranians to have taken the British Navy personnel into custody. He has provided the grid co-ordinates of the incident which clearly showed that our personnel were in Iraqi waters and made it clear that we expect their immediate and safe return. I should tell the House that we have no doubt either about the facts or about the legitimacy of our requirements.
	When our ambassador and my colleague Lord Triesman followed up with the Iranian authorities on Monday 26 March, we were provided with new, and—I quote—"corrected" grid co-ordinates by the Iranian side, which now showed the incident as having taken place in Iranian waters. As I made clear to Foreign Minister Mottaki when I spoke to him yesterday, we find it impossible to believe, given the seriousness of the incident, that the Iranians could have made such a mistake with the original co-ordinates, which, after all, they gave us over several days.
	There has inevitably been much international interest in the situation, particularly given our personnel's role in a multinational force operating under a UN mandate. I have spoken to a number of international partners, including the American Secretary of State Rice, the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan and the Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Saud. We have also been keeping other key international partners informed, and I am pleased to be able to tell the House that many of them have chosen to lobby the Iranians or to make statements of support. I am particularly grateful to my colleague Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, who has confirmed publicly that the incident took place in Iraqi waters, and called for the personnel, who are acting in Iraq's interests, to be released.
	The Iranians have assured us that all our personnel are being treated well. We will hold them to that commitment and continue to press for immediate release. They have also assured us that there is no linkage between this issue and other issues—bilateral, regional or international—which I welcome. However, I regret to say that the Iranian authorities have so far failed to meet any of our demands or to respond to our desire to resolve this issue quickly and quietly through behind-the-scenes diplomacy.
	That is why we have today chosen to respond to parliamentary and public demand for more information about the original incident, and to get on the public record both our and the Iranian accounts, to demonstrate the clarity of our position and the force of the Prime Minister's words on Sunday 25 March when he said:
	"there is no doubt at all that these people were taken from a boat in Iraqi waters. It is simply not true that they went into Iranian territorial waters, and I hope the Iranian Government understands how fundamental an issue this is for us. We have certainly sent the message back to them very clearly indeed. They should not be under any doubt at all about how seriously we regard this act, which is unjustified and wrong."
	The House might also be aware that, even if the Iranian Government mistakenly believed that our vessels had been in Iranian waters, under international law warships have sovereign immunity in the territorial sea of other states. The very most that Iran would have been entitled to do, if it considered that our boats were breaching the rules on innocent passage, would have been to require the ship to leave its territorial waters immediately.
	We will continue to pursue vigorously our diplomatic efforts with the Iranians to press for the immediate release of our personnel and equipment. As Members of the House will appreciate, with sensitive issues such as these—as with the recent Ethiopian case—getting the balance right between private, but robust, diplomacy and meeting the House's and the public's justified demand for reliable information is a difficult judgment. I am very grateful for the support that the foreign affairs spokesmen of other parties, you, Mr. Speaker, and others in the House have given us over the past few days, and I hope that that will continue.
	As the Prime Minister indicated yesterday, however, we are now in a new phase of diplomatic activity. That is why the Ministry of Defence has today released details of the incident, and why I have concluded that we need to focus all our bilateral efforts during this phase on the resolution of the issue. We will, therefore, be imposing a freeze on all other official bilateral business with Iran until the situation is resolved. We will keep other aspects of our policy towards Iran under close review and continue to proceed carefully. But no one should be in any doubt about the seriousness with which we regard these events.

William Hague: I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. When she demands the safe and swift return of our Royal Navy personnel, she has the united support of the House. We support the Government in the firm but measured approach that they have adopted so far, as well as the announcement that she has just made about the freezing of other bilateral business.
	Clearly the seizure of our personnel was unjustified, and the evidence that the Foreign Secretary and the Ministry of Defence have presented shatters the credibility of any claim that our personnel were operating in Iranian waters. The Government are right to use every diplomatic channel, and to have avoided early escalation of the matter beyond the publication of the evidence and what she has said in her statement. If this turns into a protracted dispute, this country is placed in the strongest moral and legal position by having approached the issue in this way. Is it not vital for Iran to understand that such actions only damage its standing in international opinion? This country's response must be one that increases its international support.
	I commend our forces for the difficult and dangerous tasks that they are undertaking in Iraq and its territorial waters, under a clear UN mandate, and in support of the stability of that country. I also welcome the Government's action to keep the families of those involved—who are very much in our thoughts, as the Foreign Secretary has said—fully informed.
	Can the Foreign Secretary say what justification was given by the Iranian ambassador or Foreign Minister for their failure to provide consular access to our personnel, or to reveal their location? Is it not unacceptable that British officials have not been given access to them? Has she received any indication of when that will finally take place? Have the Government managed to ascertain exactly who is believed to be holding them in custody? In their communications with the Iranian authorities, will the Government make it absolutely clear that any repeat of the mistreatment experienced by the British marines held by Iran in 2004 will be viewed with the utmost seriousness in this country?
	The Government will be aware of speculation that some in Iran view the detention of British personnel as an asset that can be traded in for concessions. Have any demands been made by Iran—the Foreign Secretary did not mention any in her statement—in relation to their capture?
	Can the Foreign Secretary indicate what effect, if any, the incident has had on the ability of British naval forces to continue to operate in Iraqi waters? On the rules of engagement, will she and the Defence Secretary be able to assure the House that any changes requested by those commanding our forces will be granted?
	Three years ago, eight British personnel were seized by Iran from the Shatt al-Arab on the ground that they had violated Iranian waters. Will the Foreign Secretary say what conclusions were drawn from that experience? In particular, was any understanding sought with Iran, or offered by it, about the waters in which British naval forces operate, and about the fact that such operations pose no threat to the Iranian state? Will the Ministry of Defence look again at its configuration of forces in the area, so that the forces undertaking these tasks are fully protected, or better protected, or better able to deter interference with their activities?
	We support what the Prime Minister has said about British efforts moving into a different phase. If agreement to release the personnel is not forthcoming in the coming days, will not the correct way to pursue their release be multilateral and through the UN, since Britain is operating under a UN mandate? Will the Government take all necessary steps to ensure that if the situation endures we will have the maximum support from the UN Security Council and the EU, which has very extensive trading and financial links with Iran and our many friends in the region? In that way, the greatest possible degree of international unity can be brought to bear.
	Finally, the international effort to convince the Iranian Government to suspend their nuclear programme and return to negotiations passed an important milestone on Saturday, with the agreement of a Security Council resolution widening UN sanctions against Iran. Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that that separate matter will in no way weaken our resolve, or that of other nations, to enforce those UN sanctions, so that nuclear proliferation in the middle east can be resisted?

Margaret Beckett: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his response to the statement, and for his concern. I am grateful for the very welcome co-operation that he has willingly given. He asked what justification had been given for withholding consular access and information about the location of our personnel, and so on. Nothing that I could call justification has been given. All that has been said is that investigations are continuing. I spoke to the Iranian Foreign Minister yesterday, and he said for the first time that consular access would not be given until the investigations were completed. Prior to that, delivery had been taken of the request for consular access, but no commitment had been given. We have been given no clear indication as to where or by whom our personnel are being held. I share entirely, as I am sure does the whole House, the right hon. Gentleman's observation about the grave concern with which we would view any mistreatment.
	To date no demands have been made by the Government of Iran. What has been said is that this is a technical but very grave breach of Iran's borders, and that investigations into it are continuing. We do not judge that it will make a difference to how our people operate, but the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that if the commanders on the ground were to seek a change in the rules of engagement—which they have not done—that would be treated with the utmost seriousness.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about a range of people. We have contacted everyone we can think of who might have an influence, and sought to get them to bring that influence to bear. He may be aware that the Foreign Minister of Germany, which has the EU presidency at the moment, recently made a statement on behalf of the EU. I therefore assure the House that we will pursue every avenue and channel to try to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion.

Michael Moore: May I echo the thanks to the Foreign Secretary expressed by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) for coming to the House to make this statement? I also thank her for all the information that she and her officials have made available to us.
	We share the Government's anger and concern about this illegal abduction of UK service personnel. Our thoughts are with them and their families. It is outrageous that Iran has compounded its serious breach of international law by refusing even to confirm where the marines and sailors are held, never mind allowing the basic humanitarian requirement of consular access. This episode has been an epic misjudgement by Iran.
	Does the Foreign Secretary believe that the episode is a one-off, designed to test British attitudes, or part of a deliberate strategy to ramp up pressure against all the coalition forces in the region? We understand that there is constant Iranian activity in those waters, but can she say whether there has been any change in the pattern since the illegal seizure last week?
	On the diplomatic front, given Iran's many complex political layers, can the Foreign Secretary tell us on which levels British diplomatic efforts are focused? As part of moving into the different phase, what formal assistance has been offered or is available from our European, American and other international partners?
	Will the Foreign Secretary re-emphasise that nobody in Britain will accept links to any other issues—or, indeed, anything other than the swift return of the British service personnel and full Iranian compliance with all Iran's international obligations?

Margaret Beckett: I thank the hon. Gentleman, too, for his co-operation and that of his colleagues. There is no indication of whether this is a one-off event, or of the significance that it might have. We are not aware of any change in the pattern of Iranian behaviour in the Gulf. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) asked about the Iran nuclear file. The incident took place close to the vote in the Security Council but, I repeat, the Iranians have told us that they are not making a link between that and any other issue. I assure him and the House that that will make no difference to our determination. Indeed, it is a constant source of astonishment to me that it seems not to dawn on some of the authorities in Iran that behaving in that manner increases rather than diminishes people's concern about how they would behave if they had a nuclear weapon.
	The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) asked me at what level we were operating. The answer is: at every level we can—official level and ministerial. Everywhere where there are levers to pull, we are pulling them. I am delighted to say that we have been offered wholehearted and strong support from our many allies to whom we have spoken. They have all expressed grave concern and been willing to try help in dealing with the Iranians. Indeed, they have done that.

Don Touhig: I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to the House and making the statement. The Government should be commended by hon. Members of all parties for their approach to seeking the release of our forces, who were illegally seized by the Iranians. I echo her point about nuclear weapons. Many people will consider the Iranian action provocative and aggressive. More people around the globe will treat it as that the longer the Iranians refuse our legitimate demands for the release of our service people.

Margaret Beckett: My right hon. Friend is right to say that that concern exists. The genuine gravity with which all those to whom my colleagues and I have spoken received the news, especially once we could explain clearly to them the strength of the evidence that we hold, was noticeable. Clearly, everyone was thinking through the implications of that behaviour for the whole international community.

Iain Duncan Smith: All of us here fully understand the difficulties that the Foreign Secretary and her colleagues experience in dealing with the dysfunctional, pariah organisation of a Government in Iran. May I take her back to an earlier part of her statement, in which she mentioned support from others, including the United Nations? Is she confident, given the importance of speedy resolution, that the European Union and the United Nations would be prepared, at short notice, to step up to severe levels of sanction and embargo as a consequence of the action in Iran, and let Iran know in advance that that is where matters are heading if a speedy withdrawal does not occur?

Margaret Beckett: As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, all those issues are under discussion. We are anxious to proceed in a way that will encourage Iran to realise that, as we have urged from the beginning, the best way to resolve the matter is speedily and peacefully. The presidency of the EU has made a statement. A meeting of European Union Foreign Ministers, which I shall attend, takes place this weekend. We will discuss those matters then. We are considering, through our mission in New York, whether there are ways in which we wish to raise the matter through the UN system.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to the House. We all wish for a speedy and successful resolution to the matter. Many serving and former serving naval personnel live in my constituency, and they understand only too well what the families of the detained personnel are going through. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should emphasise the importance of the reason for the Royal Navy's presence in the first place? It was not only protecting oil platforms that provide the income for the reconstruction of Iraq, but preventing any possibility of sabotage, which would have horrendous environmental consequences for the whole Gulf.

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks. I know that she speaks for her constituents. She is right about the environmental problems that could be caused by action in that part of the Gulf. However, as I am sure that she and other hon. Members know, approximately 85 per cent. of Iraq's gross national product passes through that gateway. That is why those involved are acting not only in the interests of the Government and people of Iraq, but on behalf of the United Nations.

John Maples: As our forces in the Gulf are operating under a United Nations Security Council resolution, Iran's action is a breach not only of international maritime law but of that resolution. I do not understand why the Government's first action was not to go straight back to the Security Council and secure a resolution ordering Iran to return our personnel whom it captured.

Margaret Beckett: We chose first to deal with the issue bilaterally, and in a way that we hoped would be most speedily effective. Obviously we will consider the matters that the hon. Gentleman raises.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. In her discussions with the Iranian authorities, have they sought at any stage to raise the wider issue of sanctions imposed against Iran because of the dispute over its alleged nuclear developments?

Margaret Beckett: No, the Iranians have not raised those issues. I say to my hon. Friend, with great respect, that the "allegation" comes from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Gregory Campbell: May my colleagues and I associate ourselves with the position of establishing international relations to try to bring the matter to a speedy and satisfactory conclusion? We give our wholehearted support to the Government's endeavours to do that. Our thoughts and prayers are with the personnel and their families. The Foreign Secretary referred to getting the balance right between private and robust diplomacy. Will she assure hon. Members that there will be no attempt to go—or attraction towards going—down the route of accommodating any demands that Iran may make in trying to resolve the issue?

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for their support. Of course, we remain determined to try to ensure that the British Government's policy is the policy that we should pursue. I repeat that up to now, the Iranians have not made demands. They have simply made an allegation, which we believe is now disproved, that their borders have been crossed.

Clive Efford: May I add my words of appreciation to those of other hon. Members about the Government's approach of attempting to avoid escalating confrontation? Our concerns must primarily be about the personnel who have been taken. All that the House can do at this time is offer its full support to the Government, and unite to provide maximum support for the Government's endeavours. In addition, will my right hon. Friend say whether procedures have been reviewed to ensure that, as far as is practical, no ship can be isolated in such a way in future by any Iranian ship in the area?

Margaret Beckett: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks and his support. Of course we are considering all the implications of the matter. As for what he says about our handling of the matter in the initial stages, I even went so far as to point out to the Iranian Foreign Minister that the one thing that would certainly cause the British media lose all interest in the case would be the emergence of good news.

Malcolm Rifkind: I commend the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office for the professional way in which they are trying to secure the release of the personnel. Does she accept that on past form Iran is unlikely to respond purely to diplomatic representations? Will she therefore discuss with other European Foreign Ministers, when she meets them this weekend, whether their countries, particularly France, Germany and Italy, would be willing perhaps privately to make it clear to the Iranian Government that, if they do not release the British personnel in the very near future, there will be a joint European response involving economic pressure and perhaps the temporary suspension of export credit guarantees to Iran?

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his remarks, particularly in respect of my officials. I understand the point that he is making. It is not necessarily the case that Iran has not always responded primarily to diplomatic efforts. We will certainly keep those up at every level, but obviously I will discuss with my colleagues this weekend whether there are proposals that the EU can consider.

Crispin Blunt: The only crumb of comfort in the Foreign Secretary's statement is that Iran officially is saying that there is no link with other issues. In her assessment, what link is actually being made in Iran with the arrest of the five Iranian diplomats at Christmas by the Americans, and with the 300 Iranians who are being held by the Americans? There appears to be a dispute between the State Department and the Pentagon about the merits of releasing some of those prisoners. Remarks have been attributed to General Petraeus, who has said that he is refusing to release them and that he intends to hold the prisoners
	"until they run out of information or we run out of food".
	What is her assessment of the actual reasons for the seizure of our personnel? What is the popular mood in Iran?

Margaret Beckett: Actually, there are two crumbs of comfort. One is that the Iranians also say that our personnel are fit and well and are being well looked after. Obviously, we very much hope that that is indeed the case. The hon. Gentleman asks me about other links. All I can say to him and to the House is that it was the Iranians who volunteered that they were not making any link between that and any other issues. Indeed, it was referred to more than once to me as a technical breach, but a very important technical breach. They are not making links; we would be unwise to do so.

Pete Wishart: I assure the Foreign Secretary that she has the full-hearted support of both Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party in her efforts to bring about the early release of the sailors. Although we accept fully the Ministry of Defence's account of the location of the ship, can she clarify that there is no ongoing dispute between the Iranian and Iraqi Governments about the exact location of the border?

Margaret Beckett: No, there is none. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. There is no dispute between the Iranian and Iraqi Governments about the position of the border. Although I did not highlight this in my statement, the House will be aware that our account and our assertion that the ship and the personnel were in Iraqi waters is borne out by the captain of the merchant vessel that our personnel had finished inspecting and by an Iraqi fisherman in the area who first reported the incident.

Nicholas Winterton: I commend the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister on what they have told the House today. It is good that the House is united across all parties on the action that the Government are taking, but is not what has happened a very serious precedent? Is it not an act of piracy by a nation state? Not only is it an act of piracy, but the Iranians are denying the human rights of the naval personnel who are involved, in that they have denied them the right of access to consular and other authorities who may represent them. Are we in touch with the Russian President about the matter?

Margaret Beckett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Indeed, this is a very serious matter. As I indicated a few moments ago, it was most noticeable that, when we were discussing and explaining to colleagues from a variety of countries across the Gulf and beyond what had happened, everyone regarded this as a very dangerous and worrying precedent. I am not sure that anyone has yet spoken to the Russian President, but we are in touch with all allies and colleagues who we believe may be able to help.

Patrick Mercer: There is no doubt that, while this incident has been going on, there have been at least two other incidents of explosive attacks against our troops in southern Iraq. Those devices seem to have come from across the Iranian border. Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that we will continue to put pressure on Iran to stop that sort of behaviour to guard our soldiers' lives?

Margaret Beckett: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman and the House that assurance. We will not cease from maintaining what we believe to be the proper stance and approach to the issues that are raised by a variety of policies pursued by the Government of Iran.

Julian Brazier: The whole House supports the Government's strategy for recovering our personnel. The Foreign Secretary said that HMS Cornwall was part of a taskforce. Was it operating alone when the incident took place? Was close air support available?

Margaret Beckett: I believe that HMS Cornwall was indeed alone. It has helicopters, so in that sense air support was available.

Colin Breed: A year ago, when I visited HMS Bulwark, which was roughly in the same position as HMS Cornwall, I was told that we had completed our training of the Iraqi navy, which was to undertake the task of boarding parties. Why is it not performing the task of those boarding parties? Why are we continuing to do it with royal naval personnel?

Margaret Beckett: I am not entirely sure whether the information that the hon. Gentleman has been given is entirely correct, but of course all the circumstances surrounding the matter will be reviewed as time goes on. However, he will understand that the first priority is the personnel themselves.

Ann Winterton: Will the Foreign Secretary have a word with the Secretary of State for Defence to ensure that in future no British forces operate in Iraqi waters—which are known to be extremely dangerous; past incidents proved that—unsupported and without appropriate protection and back-up? Could there not be other incidents in future—we very much hope not—and might this not be a dangerous precedent given that, possibly bearing in mind the current rules of engagement, there is no meaningful deterrent against the Iranians?

Margaret Beckett: As I have said to a number of colleagues, all the circumstances of the case will of course be considered. There will be a careful review of the courses of action that the Government should pursue in future, but I repeat that the focus at present is on action on the diplomatic front to recover our personnel.

Brooks Newmark: I thank the Minister for her extremely thorough statement, in which she said that she was assured that there was no link at all with other issues, bilateral, regional or international. However, my concern is that the President and his party have performed extremely poorly in domestic elections recently. What assessment has she made of the connection with that particular matter?

Margaret Beckett: None, to be perfectly honest. Obviously, it is possible to speculate, but no real hints are being dropped and no demands are being made. It is said to be a one-off incident and we are treating it as such.

Philip Hollobone: Although press and media freedom is important, has not it been completely irresponsible of elements of the British press and media to publish highly personal details about some of the individuals who have been captured by the Iranians, which inevitably will be used in their interrogation, when they will be without access to any of our consular facilities?

Margaret Beckett: I can only share the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman, which I think is felt across the House.

Gary Streeter: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that HMS Cornwall is based at Devonport naval base, which is part of Plymouth. Many of the 15 people will therefore be my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck). Can she reassure us, particularly with the Secretary of State for Defence sitting beside her, that every possible support will be given to the families of those 15 personnel, who will be going through daily hell as the situation unfolds? Will she confirm that she either has or will make it clear that if any of those 15 are paraded in some public relations stunt on Iranian television, whether blindfolded or not, it will be seen as an act of the utmost provocation?

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I know that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) share concern for their constituents. We have tried to do what we can to support the families through a very difficult time. The Ministry of Defence has appointed a visits officer for each family and assigned a media shielder to try to help them to deal with the inevitable pressure, and particularly to deal with what may inevitably sometimes be inaccurate reporting. Further than that I would say only that, of course, all these issues are a matter of concern.
	The hon. Gentleman raises the question of whether the personnel may be shown on Iranian television. There has been some hint that that might occur, and we have expressed grave concern. From the beginning, our meetings with the Iranian ambassador have included an expression of exactly the kind of concern that he identifies about treatment, humiliation and so on.

Points of Order

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Today at Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister claimed that virtually no one was waiting more than six months for an NHS operation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. The hon. Gentleman can seek clarification on such matters through, for example, parliamentary questions or an Adjournment debate. He cannot dissect through a point of order what the Prime Minister has done or has failed to do.

Graham Stuart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am always grateful for your guidance. The Chancellor commissioned a comprehensive review of local taxation—the Lyons report, a more than 600-page tome—at great public expense to the British taxpayer. Having buried it on the day of the Budget, the Government have failed to give any idea of their response to that important report. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, agree that that is unacceptable, and I wonder what you might be able to do to ensure that the Government give a proper response to the House on this very important report.

Mr. Speaker: I will not be drawn into whether I agree with what a Minister says or otherwise. I am not allowed to support or criticise a Minister on anything with regard to his statement. I am not telling the hon. Gentleman what to do, but if he is unhappy about something, he and his parliamentary colleagues can make complaint by way of an early-day motion, he can take the matter up in Treasury questions, or he can table written questions for answer by Treasury Ministers.

BILL PRESENTED

Telecommunications Masts (Planning Control)

Andrew Stunell, supported by Tom Brake, Mr. Dan Rogerson, Lorely Burt, Annette Brooke, Mr. Mark Oaten and Mark Hunter, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to planning in connection with telecommunications masts and associated apparatus; to amend the electronic communications code in connection with telecommunications masts and associated apparatus and make further provision about that code; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 29 June, and to be printed [Bill 87].

Employment Assistance (Wales)

Wayne David: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower the National Assembly for Wales to make provision about transport opportunities for long-term incapacity benefit claimants who have gained employment; and for connected purposes.
	A couple of weeks ago the Minster for Employment and Welfare Reform came to my constituency to speak at an employment summit. Everyone who attended recognised that the Government, in partnership with the Welsh Assembly Government, had achieved enormous success in reducing unemployment in the south Wales valleys. In Wales as a whole there are now more people in work than ever before.
	However, everyone at that meeting also agreed that there was still a lot to do if we are to achieve full employment. The pathways to work programme underlines the fact that the central task is successfully to tackle the issue of economic inactivity. Unfortunately, in the south Wales valleys, because of the legacy of heavy industry, a huge number of people are languishing on incapacity benefit. Those are people who were written off by the Tories when they decimated the coal industry and now this Government have the task of breathing new life once again into communities and individuals who have been ignored for so long. Let me be clear: we are not talking about people who are lazy or workshy, as some of the Tories would have it. These are proud people who have been treated with contempt by consecutive Conservative Governments. Our task today is to work with our people to provide support, encouragement and real opportunities.
	Nowhere in Britain is the problem of economic inactivity more entrenched than in the area at the heads of the south Wales valleys. Recently, the Bevan Foundation indicated both the scale of the problem and some innovative ways forward. Undoubtedly, one of the problems in helping people off welfare and into work is the topography of the area. From Blaengwynfi in the west to Blaenavon in the east, there are what the writer Gwyn Thomas once called the gulches of south Wales—deep ravine-like valleys, running from north to south. The problem with such topography is twofold. First, it makes it very difficult for industry to locate, and secondly, it makes it very difficult for people to travel to work, especially if they have to travel east-west rather than north-south.
	In one of the Welsh Assembly's Committees that looked at economic inactivity in Wales, the lack of transport was correctly identified as one of the main barriers to work. Transport was also referred to time and time again at the employment summit that I referred to earlier. Only the other day, a constituent explained to me how he was faced with the difficulty of travelling from his home in the village of Graig-y-Rhacca across the Rhymney valley to his place of employment just south of Ystrad Mynach. That is a classic example of how just one individual had difficulty in travelling east-west rather than north-south.
	In many valley communities poor public transport is part of the fabric of life. A large number of communities do not have passenger rail links and in many cases buses do not service industrial estates and business parks. Where business parks are serviced, bus timetables rarely reflect shift-working patterns. Owning a car for many people is a practical necessity. Those unable to afford a car are frequently left immobile and isolated. Limited access to personal transport is a labour market barrier often cited by new deal participants.
	In the long term, the answer is to improve public transport, and the Welsh Assembly Government, through their newly devolved powers, are working hard on that. In the short term, car ownership or access to cars is the only way to enable many people on benefit to secure employment. Of course we should be concerned about carbon emissions, but this is one of the rare cases where car ownership would have a positive social advantage.
	In that respect, Working Links, a public-private partnership, is engaged in truly path-breaking work. In the valleys of south Wales, Wheels4Work and Wheels2Work are two unique loan schemes that provide cars, commercial vehicles and scooters free of charge to people requiring personal transport to enable them to get work. Today, the two initiatives have some 80 vehicles and have helped over 400 people into employment.
	There is also the question of helping individuals who want to work when they have particular disabilities or conditions. I cite the example of a constituent of mine, Anthony Wilson. Anthony is a young man who suffers from epilepsy. He found a part-time job in the next valley and was supported by Jobcentre Plus, but Jobcentre Plus was unable to help him with his transport costs. Because of his condition he needed a taxi to get to and from work. Working Links was able to provide assistance and 12 months later Anthony Wilson is still in work. Fortunately, in my area we have Working Links, which complements the work of Jobcentre Plus, but it does not have contracts everywhere, so there are gaps that need to be filled.
	One of the features of the past couple of years has been the increasingly positive partnership between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Welsh Assembly Government. My suggestion is that we need to consider how best to deepen that relationship; the will is there but we need to look into how the relevant legislation and regulations can be modified and fine-tuned to enhance the relationship. We need to consider in particular whether we need enabling legislation to allow the WAG to intervene in DWP programmes to provide more transport opportunities. Under the Government of Wales Act 2006, the National Assembly for Wales has the opportunity to propose legislation that can then be handled speedily by Parliament.
	I hope that due consideration will be given to my proposals. Problems due to transport difficulties are more widespread in the south Wales valleys than in any other part of the country. Devolution is about finding particular solutions to particular problems. This is a problem particular to the south Wales valleys, which is why I propose that consideration be given to the Welsh Assembly gaining the ability to intervene more proactively in the welfare to work agenda.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Wayne David, Mr. Don Touhig, Ann Clwyd, Mr. Dai Havard, Nia Griffith, Chris Bryant, Julie Morgan, and Chris Ruane.

Employment Assistance (Wales)

Mr. Wayne David accordingly presented a Bill to empower the National Assembly for Wales to make provision about transport opportunities for long-term incapacity benefit claimants who have gained employment; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 October, and to be printed [Bill 88].

Communications Allowance

Jack Straw: I beg to move,
	(1) That this House approves the First Report of the Members Estimate Committee 2006-07 (HC 319) on a Communications Allowance, and is of the opinion that provision should be made with effect from 1st April 2007 for a Communications Allowance in accordance with paragraphs (2)—(4) below.
	(2) The allowance shall be for the purpose of assisting Members with expenditure incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily in communicating with the public on parliamentary business, and the scope of the allowance shall be as set out in the First Report of the Members Estimate Committee.
	(3) The allowance shall be at a rate of £10,000 per year for each Member, uprated annually in line with any increase in the Retail Price Index.
	(4) The detailed rules and guidance for the Allowance shall be determined and reviewed from time to time by the Members Estimate Committee.

Mr. Speaker: With this we will take the motions on Notices of Questions, etc. During September, Select Committees (Reports) and Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund.

Jack Straw: If I may, I will begin by offering congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping)—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]—on his appointment earlier today by our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as Deputy Leader of the House, in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths).
	I should like to deal first with the three motions that are pretty uncontentious, Nos. 4, 5 and 6. The motion on notices of questions in September makes permanent the arrangements that we agreed on an experimental basis last September for taking written questions during September. They seemed to meet the approbation of the House, so I hope that Members find the motion acceptable.

Theresa May: I apologise to the Leader of the House for intervening so early in his speech, but will he clarify a point in the second paragraph of the motion? It states that the
	"motion to appoint tabling days and answering days... may be made by a Minister of the Crown."
	I assume that means just one Minister, in fact the Leader of the House, and not that each Minister in each Department can set separate days.

Jack Straw: It is indeed one Minister. The reason why the motion was worded in that way is that the precise days in September we need to prescribe will need to take account of such things as party conferences, but the Minister will be the Leader of the House.
	Motion No. 5 relates to Select Committee report embargoes and extends the embargoed period allowed from 48 hours to 72 hours to take account of weekends, publication on a Monday or on a Tuesday after a bank holiday, and so on. I cannot believe that we will spend a lot of time on that motion.
	Motion No. 6 makes provision for the appointment of a beneficiary from the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund to the trustees. Sir Graham Bright, whom many of us remember as a distinguished Member of the House, has been suggested by the Former Members Association, which does good work on behalf of former Members, and I hope that the House will accept that nomination.
	I come now to the communications allowance. Last November, as the report on the communications allowance sets out in paragraph 1, the House resolved by a majority of 91 to agree the principle of instituting a communications allowance. The Members Estimate Committee was asked to bring forward more precise proposals for the House to approve, which are before us today. The Committee set out what an allowance should cover, how it should operate and a proposed level. It proposed an allowance for the purpose of assisting Members
	"in the work of communicating with the public on parliamentary business"—
	as agreed by the House in November, with the scope described in its report and subject to rules and guidance updated from time to time by the Committee. It proposed that the allowance should begin at a level of £10,000.
	The purpose of the allowance is, above all, to contribute towards public understanding of what Parliament is for and what it does—something which, as the Committee highlighted, has become a high priority. In 2004, the Modernisation Committee observed:
	"It is beyond the influence of the House of Commons, let alone this Committee, to arrest international trends of declining participation and trust. However... it can do more to make it easier for people to understand the work of Parliament, and it can do more to communicate its activity to the world outside."
	In 2005, the Hansard Society Commission, chaired by Lord Puttnam, declared:
	"Parliament should be an accessible and readily understood institution, a Parliament that relates its work to the concerns of those in the outside world... Parliament must be viewed through a far more engaged and informed public eye."
	In 2006, the Power report concluded that
	"it is widely felt that MPs do not engage with or listen to their constituents enough between elections".
	One does not have to sign up to every one of those propositions to accept the basic message that it is important for the health of our democracy for the public to know more about what we do. A survey commissioned last year by the Committee on Standards in Public Life found that although 85 per cent. of people believed that it was "extremely" or "very" important for MPs to explain the reasons for their actions, only 23 per cent. of people believed that most MPs actually do so.

Julian Lewis: Can the Leader of the House clear up a point that is troubling me? If my memory serves me correctly, the original proposals for the motion we are debating were made in the aftermath of the 2005 general election, when it was found that certain Members of Parliament had possibly abused the paid-for postal system to make mass mailings. Can he relate that to what is being proposed today and reassure the House that the motion is not a retrospective justification for that misbehaviour?

Jack Straw: It is certainly no retrospective justification for any misbehaviour. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Committee on Standards and Privileges, chaired by his right hon. Friend who is sitting behind him—

John Bercow: My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young).

Julian Lewis: My hon. Friend is the fount of all wisdom.

Jack Straw: As ever.
	The Committee investigated at least one complaint, possibly two, about a Member. I think that it found against the complaint and made some observations about the operation of the system in respect of paid-for envelopes. Another decision will be made in parallel with the proposal today, if the House agrees it—Mr. Speaker has already indicated that he will cap the provision of paid-for envelopes at £7,000. As I shall spell out, it will not be possible for Members to use the communications allowance—if it is approved—to purchase additional paid-for envelopes. Although this is a matter of some controversy across the parties, not least my own, I accept—and I have done from the moment that I got this job—that it is unacceptable for there to be no limit on the amount for paid-for envelopes.

Bob Spink: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a disconnect with the public and that it is important for MPs to communicate with their constituents who contact them? I have received a referendum signed by 8,500 of my constituents on Canvey Island against a major accident hazard site that is proposed for the island and which concerns them greatly. The referendum had a massive turnout of 68 per cent. of the total voting population of Canvey Island, and 99.5 per cent. of the people voted against the proposed liquefied natural gas plant. That is now going to appeal. I must write to all those people to tell them what happened to their petition and what they must do next to write to the inspector to make sure that their rights are upheld. That is 8,500 people I will have to write to perhaps twice this year. How am I going to be able to do that within the allowances?

Jack Straw: As it happens, and as the hon. Gentleman knows, I know his constituency, including Canvey Island, well. There are probably a higher number of hazardous sites in his constituency than in any other constituency that I can think of, certainly in the south of England. We all need to be grateful, even though we do not realise it, to the constituents of Canvey Island, because it is through those sites that such vital services are provided to the rest of the country. I have been trying to do the mental arithmetic: £7,000 should provide 21,000 or so envelopes, which would still cover his requirements. However, in addition the Members Estimate Committee makes it clear in its recommendations that, in such circumstances, he would be able to write to people who had written to him by way of a petition, and he would be able to make use of the communications allowance in so doing if he wished. Overall, it is a better and a clearer system. The problem about the paid-for envelopes was that their use just grew. There has been no proved allegation of abuse of the system, but it cannot be acceptable for any particular budget item not to have a cap on it.

Martin Salter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, far from a justification for high spending, the proposed financial cap of £10,000 and £7,000 represents a significant reduction in the resources available to higher spending Members, if one relates the figures back to the Members' allowance table for 2005-06, where some of our colleagues managed to exceed £30,000?

Jack Straw: I accept that.

Julian Lewis: Overspending Members.

Jack Straw: Higher spending Members.
	I should say to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) that the great advantage of interventions—some would say the only advantage—is that one can get the truth from the officials' Box in answer to a previous intervention while one is listening to the next one. The accurate answer to his question is that he could both use the communications allowance and top that up from the incidental expenses provision and, I am told, to a degree from staffing virement. So, he will be all right. I care about his constituents.

Jo Swinson: rose—

Julie Kirkbride: rose—

Jack Straw: If the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) will allow me to make a little progress, I will then give way to her and the hon. Lady for somewhere in Worcestershire.

John Bercow: Bromsgrove.

Jack Straw: Bromsgrove—a fine place.
	The communications allowance will assist Members with making the idea of Parliament and the work of its Members better understood. The Committee explains that the allowance would cover costs for Members of
	"engaging proactively with their constituents through a variety of media."
	The Committee continues:
	"It could be used for the production of unsolicited communications...to help Members inform their constituents about what they have been doing and to consult them on key issues"
	of importance to them locally. In better facilitating lines of communication between MPs and the public, it is important that the allowance is set up in a way that means that it does not become a propaganda tool used to entrench the position of incumbents. I know that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), the shadow Leader of the House, is concerned about that.
	While we are on the issue of incumbency, I will just say, because I am sure that we will hear a bit more about this matter—it is at the heart of any argument between us and the Opposition on this matter—it is a simple arithmetical fact that, irrespective of party, the Government party will have more incumbents than the Opposition party. However, as the right hon. Lady knows as a member of the Members Estimate Committee, we have worked hard to ensure that the measure is not there to entrench the position of incumbents. In anticipation of her making any partisan point, which I am sure she will not, I would also say that I do not remember concern about incumbency ever passing the lips of any Conservative Member of Parliament when they were sitting on the Government Benches for 18 years.
	What I do remember in those 18 years is how often we in the Opposition pleaded for more Short money. All our applications for Short money were turned down. So if the right hon. Lady thinks that she is hard done by as a member of the shadow Cabinet, she should have tried being in the shadow Cabinet for the 10 years that I was there, between 1987 and 1997. I record—I am sure that she will wish to bring this out—the extraordinary selfless generosity of this Government in not doubling, not trebling, but almost quadrupling the amount of Short money from £1.6 million in 1997 to £6.3 million in 2006.

Theresa May: Will the Leader of the House confirm that in addition to the changes to the Short money, the Government have also introduced the policy development grant, which is available not only to Opposition parties, but to the Government?

Jack Straw: I accept that, but that is neutral as between the parties, unlike the Short money. I am not complaining about the Short money.

Martin Salter: rose—

Jack Straw: I notice that my generosity has been such that my hon. Friend is suggesting that I should resign.

Martin Salter: Yes, I am sure that there is an even greater role for my right hon. Friend in the months to come.
	In the spirit of sheer partisanship, will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that the other thing that happened in the 18 years under the Conservative party was a ballooning in the budget for the Central Office of Information, to the extent that every council tax payer and every ratepayer in my town and across the country had a delightful little leaflet explaining the advantages—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We ought to confine ourselves to the matters immediately before the House.

Jack Straw: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We will pass lightly over that. I promised to give way to the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire.

Jo Swinson: On the subject of the sums that taxpayers will have to pay, the Leader of the House may remember that when we debated the issue on 1 November, I did some arithmetical calculations on the back on an envelope and suggested that
	"the proposed allowance could be an additional £6 million of taxpayers' money".
	His response was:
	"I do not believe for a second that the net cost will be as the hon. Lady describes." —[ Official Report, 1 November 2006; Vol. 451, c. 312.]
	However, we find in the booklet that has been produced by the Members Estimate Committee that
	"it is estimated that the total annual cost of the Communications Allowance would be about £6 million."
	When the House voted on the matter last time, it was under the impression that the cost would be less. What is his opinion of that figure? It obviously was not too difficult to work out. It is a huge amount of taxpayers' money and, in my view, it is not warranted.

Jack Straw: The maximum gross cost is easy, arithmetically, to work out: it is 650 times £10,000. We can all do that sum, can we not? What I was disputing was the idea that people would spend up to the maximum. That is not the case for other allowances. I understand that, in general, other allowances are spent at the level of about 90 per cent.—I have just had semaphore confirmation of that from the Box. It also needs to be borne in mind that an estimate—these are only estimates; time will tell whether they are correct—has been made of a possible saving of £400,000 in respect of those who currently draw allowances above the £7,000 limit. Even if the cost were to be at the £6 million level, I happen to think that it would be money well spent. I quote in my support the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling)—a Conservative Member—who said in the debate on 1 November:
	"It is too easy to dismiss the proposed allowance as extra money for Members of Parliament, when it is actually an initiative that would put a cap on irresponsible behaviour."—[ Official Report, 1 November 2006; Vol. 451, c. 381.]
	I believe that.

Julie Kirkbride: I would like to refer to the Leader of the House's previous answer. Although Members have not been found guilty of misusing their allowances, some have had to reimburse the Fees Office for envelopes that were used mistakenly. Why has the right hon. Gentleman chosen the amounts of £7,000 and £10,000 for these allowances? Were the figures pulled out of a hat?

Jack Straw: I will ask for more briefing from the Box—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman keeps referring to direct contact with the Box. We do not normally do that in the House.

Jack Straw: And I should know that after a few months in this place. I will seek further elucidation from my deputy.

John Bercow: rose—

Jack Straw: Let me answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride). I am not aware of any circumstances in which Members have been required to return envelopes, although that does not mean that they do not exist.
	In the end, the setting of the allowance was a matter of judgment. We judged that the sum was relatively modest and reasonable. The decision on advising Mr. Speaker—this is his decision, not ours—on the maximum that could be spent on paid-for envelopes was taken using the judgment that the amount would cover the majority of Members. That amount is the point at which the normal bell curve distribution starts getting very skewed. The mean expenditure is £4,500 to £5,000, so the amount would cover most Members' activities.

George Young: Will the Leader of the House explain why he did not await the judgment of the Senior Salaries Review Body on this allowance, which happens with all other allowances?

Jack Straw: This is a new allowance. I was not aware that we were required to await the judgment of the SSRB in respect of new allowances. I have written and given evidence to the board about the fact of the allowance, which is my responsibility. I think that this is an appropriate way of doing things. I am not sure that the SSRB would have been in a better position to make a judgment. I happen to believe that it is important—I hope that he agrees, as Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee—that we put a cap on the paid-for envelopes.

John Bercow: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) on his appointment. Some of us remember that in an earlier incarnation, under the tutelage of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett), his mellifluous tones had a soothing impact on the House in all sorts of difficult circumstances.
	On the use of the allowance, will the Leader of the House clarify the position on the content that broadly would and would not be permissible? Paragraph 10 on page 4 of the Members Estimate Committee's report, which is on the scope of the allowance, states on the one hand that unsolicited mailing may be undertaken, but on the other it cites the caveat that the material should not promote one party or denigrate another. What if Members of one party, conscious of controversy surrounding a particular policy, were to seek to craft letters to go out to their constituents, perhaps en masse, that made no reference to another political party or its position, but were simply an attempt to trumpet the merits of that policy? Could the allowance be used and potentially abused for that purpose?

Jack Straw: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, whose ingenuity goes before him, will excuse me if I do not offer arbitration on specific examples. I think that the rules are fairly clear. Although the line between what is parliamentary and what is political is a fine one, it is pretty clear in practice—everyone understands the difference. I will come on to describe what the allowance is for and what it is not for.

Bill Wiggin: As I understand it, £7,000 of the allowance may be spent on stationery and pre-paid envelopes, which will leave about £3,000 for other things such as websites—[Hon. Members: "No."] If I am wrong, I am sure that I will be corrected. Will the Leader of the House examine the situation at election time regarding websites that are funded by what is essentially taxpayers' money?

Jack Straw: An important aspect of what we are doing is tightening the arrangements for websites quite considerably.

David Heath: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Jack Straw: Yes, and then I am going to provide information to the House—not that I have been failing to do so up to now.

David Heath: Of course, it is information that I require. Let me bring the Leader of the House back to the answer that he gave to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink). When the Leader was talking about spending more than the £7,000 limit on pre-paid envelopes, I thought that I heard him say, with nods of approbation from others who might or might not be in the Chamber, that other allowances could be used to increase the spending on pre-paid envelopes beyond £7,000, which would make the limit a nonsense. As I understand it, paragraph 19 of the Members Estimate Committee's report clearly forbids the issue of pre-paid envelopes beyond the £7,000 limit. Is that correct?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman is correct—he says what I hope that I said. It will be possible for Members to use the allowance to pay for the postage of communications above and beyond the £7,000 for pre-paid envelopes, but it will not be possible to use any other allowance to pay for additional envelopes over the £7,000 limit.

David Heath: What is the point then?

Jack Straw: We were advised that if we wanted the staff to have effective control, we would have to set the limit at £7,000—full stop. If the system does not work properly, I am sure that the House will be able to review it in due course.
	Allow me to give the House further information, which, after communing through the ether, has now arrived—this shows the power of prayer to those who dispute it. A few hon. Members have been asked to repay costs for pre-paid envelopes to the Serjeant, usually because of a misunderstanding about the rules. The sums are usually small: the cost of a few hundred envelopes.
	I am reminded that I wrote to the SSRB in advance of discussions on the allowance. It gave its blessing and said that it would return to the matter in its evidence when the triennial review is published in the summer.
	This is a relatively short debate, but I have already been speaking for 24 minutes—I have been taking interventions for 22 minutes and speaking for a couple—so I will canter through what the allowance is not for and what it is for. It is not for party political advocacy or for Members to undermine the reputation of others. It is not to give incumbents an advantage over challengers. Accordingly, the report states that the allowance would not be used for fundraising, encouraging people to join a party, campaigning for or against a candidate, or advancing arguments to promote a particular political party or organisation. As I have said, the boundaries between parliamentary and party political work can be difficult to draw, but we all understand where they lie. The Department of Finance and Administration and the Fees Office are accustomed to handling the distinction in respect of constituency reports and newsletters, which are sent out by Members on both sides of the House and are a useful initiative.
	All members of the MEC who have considered the matter know that there are occasions when Members on both sides of the House make mistakes. That is especially a danger in respect of the ever-changing world of websites, in which the rules have not kept pace with developments. The MEC saw evidence of websites of Members of all three major parties that were not in accordance with the current rules. If those websites had been submitted as a hard-copy draft of an annual report, they would never have got past the Department of Finance and Administration. In fact, I do not think that anyone would have had the cheek to put them forward. However, the websites were in place and using public money for purposes other than parliamentary purposes.
	Websites that are funded from the communications allowance should be used only for parliamentary purposes. To ensure that there is much better control, we have decided to make the rules clear and to say that it will not be acceptable for Members to allow publicly funded web pages to be contained in another domain or website, and vice versa. Members will have a parliamentary website, and they may have separate websites if they wish to fund them from other sources. Parliamentary websites will close down when Parliament is dissolved after a general election is called.
	A website must comply with the same rules on the content of material as any other publication, and it must contain on the home page a statement that it is funded from parliamentary allowances. Any links to other sites must make it clear electronically that the reader is leaving the parliamentary-funded website. However, websites are becoming increasingly sophisticated and it is important that the MEC should have asked the DFA to monitor website content so that the MEC can be assured that the allowances are being used for the stated purposes.
	As I have said, we have proposed a level of £10,000 per Member, and we think that that is reasonable. It will go hand in hand with the establishment of a cap on envelopes. Most—including me—spend an average of between £4,500 and £5,000. Most Members fall on the normal distribution curve, spending between £2,500 and £7,000, but some were spending considerably more. That will now end. The estimated take-up is about 90 per cent.

Graham Brady: The Leader of the House has talked about his own postage, which is average. Does he believe that in communicating with his constituents in Blackburn he will need the use of the £10,000 additional communications allowance?

Jack Straw: I may do. To make the reverse of the incumbent's point, I am lucky enough to represent a single town and to have served it for a long time—I am now in my 28th year. It has an evening paper that circulates in only five constituencies, and the BBC has wisely sited Radio Lancashire's headquarters in Blackburn rather than any other town in Lancashire. All that makes communication with constituents easier. Serving a single town makes it much easier for me to hold open-air meetings, as I still do, in the centre of town and to hold residents' meetings around the town—

John Bercow: That money would buy a lot of tannoys.

Jack Straw: That is true. If I represented a series of villages, communication would be more difficult. I have, for the first time ever, sent round an annual report, approved in every particular of course by the Fees Office, and it seems to have been well received. People have been interested to learn what I have been doing and how to contact me at my surgeries. Rather than increasing my incumbency support, it has just led to a much higher demand on my staff in terms of my surgeries.
	The administration of the allowance will be run by the Fees Office and draft rules have been set out in the booklet. They will be revised from time to time.

Tony Wright: Although the proposal is advantageous to me, as to all of us, I have the most profound reservations about it. It will be an exercise in shameless self-promotion. It will be used to tell people how wonderful we are, and that will be paid for by our constituents. It is a worthy objective, but I caution my right hon. Friend that it may do more harm than good.

Jack Straw: I very rarely disagree with my hon. Friend, but I disagree profoundly with what he has just said. I do not happen to think that the annual report that I sent out for the first time was in the category that he describes, nor is the work that the hon. Member for Castle Point described. He said that he had received a petition from some 8,000 of his constituents expressing concern about the siting of a liquid petroleum gas terminal on Canvey Island. My hon. Friend may not know Canvey Island, but I do, and it already has many similar sites. Responding to that is not shameless self-promotion; it is doing a Member's job. I resist my hon. Friend's suggestion, which is not worthy of him.

Bob Spink: Rather than the proposal being advantageous to Members, does the Leader of the House agree that our constituents might find it advantageous to them for us to tell them what is going on, keep them involved and give them another means of contact with us? Like me, he will know no Members who would knowingly abuse the system. It will be up to Members to use the system with good will. We are all honourable Members and we will all do that.

Jack Straw: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The House will credit me with spending 18 years in opposition without complaining about that fact, except within my party, or about the Government's use of incumbency. Nor did I suggest that the voting system had disadvantaged us. I thought that we were in opposition because we had failed to convince enough voters to vote for us and we needed to change our ways. We all need to be concerned about the distance between the electors and the elected, and if we are to improve that we must not just ask for support at elections, but explain to people what we are doing between elections and provide them with reassurance.

Jim Sheridan: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the proposals are accepted, it will not be compulsory to use the £10,000? If people do not want to use it to tell their electorate how wonderful they are, they do not have to do so. Does the proposal include a provision that the allowance will be paid only to those people who vote for it?

Jack Straw: Now my hon. Friend asks too much. He is right to say that use of the allowance is not compulsory. Many of the allowances are not used at the moment. I use slightly less than the full office costs and staffing allowances. As for who will use it, let us wait and see, but I suspect that there will be some difference between those who vote against the allowance and those who then use it.

Geraldine Smith: Does the Leader of the House agree that the British public are not stupid? It would be extremely foolish for Members to send communications that were obviously shameless self-promotion, because that would backfire on them. We must use the allowance carefully because the public will be watching. Communication should be about issues that affect them and that are important to them.

Jack Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend. Experience has shown that the public see through those who go in for what my hon. Friend describes. In her case, when we had the tragedy of the Chinese cockle pickers—with which she dealt expertly—she did get more publicity, but it was not a question of shameless self-publicity. Rather, it was a Member of Parliament doing her job well. It was entirely fair that her constituents should have recognised that at the following election. That was democracy in action.
	I have said enough about this allowance. It has been the subject of careful consideration by the MEC, on which all parties are represented, and I commend it to the House.

Theresa May: I begin by welcoming the Deputy Leader of the House to his new role. I am sure he was delighted, as was the Leader of the House, that the Prime Minister was able to appoint him just in time for the recess Adjournment debate tomorrow.
	I wish to emphasise how important today's debate is. The world moves on, the style and manner of Government move on, and Parliament must move on, too. It is vital to our democracy that Parliament remains relevant to the outside world and remains capable of serving it well. In recent weeks, we have debated reform of the other place and party funding. Today's debate might attract less attention from outside, but how we do our job as MPs, how we hold the Government to account and how we communicate with our electorate are all issues that are crucial to the health of our democracy.
	We have come a long way since Edmund Burke gave his address to the electors of Bristol in 1774. Modern Members of Parliament—perhaps I should say most modern Members of Parliament—do not see themselves just as expert deliberators, aloof from their constituents. Yes, we are deliberators and debaters, holding the Government to account, but we are also representatives of our communities. As such, we want to listen to and communicate with our constituents. I suspect that if we did not, we would enjoy the same fate as Mr. Burke, who was turfed out at the next election. Perhaps I am being unfair to Burke, because even in his address to the electors of Bristol he said that
	"it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents."
	I hope that even the traditionalists among us will agree that Members need to be able to communicate properly with their constituents, and I agree with the Government that if we are to do so, the rules need to change. However, we do not agree with the proposals in the communications allowance motion tabled by the Leader of the House.
	I recognise that the proposals have been discussed and agreed by the Members Estimate Committee, and that the House is agreed on the need to tackle the overuse and potential abuse of stationery, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) said earlier. I am a member of the Committee, and I agree that the issue needs to be addressed, but, as I made clear in the previous debate on the issue and on a number of other occasions, I fear that what is proposed will not just replace the abuse of stationery supplies and bring Parliament up to date but will give an enormous taxpayer-funded advantage to sitting Members of Parliament.
	The Leader of the House is effectively proposing that each hon. Member should get a £13,000 increase in expenses, because we would keep the incidental expenses provision, which will go above £20,000, we would get a new communications allowance of £10,000 and, allied to that, Mr. Speaker will cap the stationery allowance at £7,000. The total adds up to an increase of £13,000 because the £7,000 cap on stationery is £3,000 more than the average amount spent by Members, so on average, there would be an extra £13,000 of taxpayers' money for each Member.
	Members talk sincerely about the need to communicate properly with our constituents, but we owe it to them to make sure that we spend their taxes wisely. Does the House really believe that all constituents think that we spend their taxes wisely? We all know what the reaction was of the press and the people when our travel expenses were published recently. It is fair to say that people's scepticism about politicians led them to think that we all had our noses in the trough. Of course, that is not true. There is a need to ensure that the budget and expenses available to MPs enable us to do our jobs effectively, and there is a responsibility on the media to be careful in their reporting of such matters, but we must be mindful of the views of those who bestow on us the privilege of sitting in Parliament.
	According to the official figures, several Members already claim more than £20,000 a year in stationery and postage costs. I see that the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) is in his place in the Chamber, and we may well hear from him later on how he spent £37,000 of taxpayers' money on stationery. When we last debated the subject, he said in  Hansard on 1 November 2006, in column 355, volume 451, that that was "a matter of pride" to him, and that that spending made him a good Member of Parliament. I look forward to hearing what else he has to say on the matter.

Andrew Dismore: The right hon. Lady notified me of the fact that she would refer to me today; I got her e-mail minutes before the debate, but I am grateful even for that notice, as I had not planned to speak today. I would simply say that those people who are concerned about the issue should read my comments in the previous debate, in which I quoted a large number of constituents who were grateful to receive the information that I was providing to them. It is a matter of pride to me that I have been a high spender, because it shows that I have been working as hard as I can to keep my constituents informed. I simply regret that today's decision will mean that I am less able to do that.

Theresa May: I am happy to apologise to the hon. Gentleman for having given him such late notice of the fact that I intended to refer to him in the debate, although as he is the Member who has spent the most on stationery, I think it unlikely that the debate would have taken place without him being referred to. I simply point out, as I did in the previous debate, that although he says that his communications with his constituents are gladly welcomed, turnout in his constituency at the election was just 58 per cent. In fact, he had a larger drop in his percentage share of the vote than Members in neighbouring constituencies did. Perhaps he might like to think about that, and reflect that his voters might like him a little bit more if they heard from him less.

Andrew Dismore: As I say, I was not planning to speak in the debate. I simply repeat a point that I made in the previous debate: as far as I am concerned, the spending is not about trying to build an incumbency, or about trying to boost my personal vote somehow. It was about trying to keep constituents informed. Indeed, many of the people to whom I write are Conservative supporters and always will be. I have no prospect whatever of persuading them to vote for me, and I fully accept that, but it is part of our duty as Members to make sure that we keep in contact with all our constituents, of whatever political hue. I do not regard that as part of a vote-building operation.

Theresa May: I note the hon. Gentleman's comments. I refer him to the comments that the Leader of the House made in opening the debate, in which he referred to the need for Members of Parliament to encourage greater interest in what is happening in Parliament, and our communications are part of that. I suggest to the hon. Member for Hendon that the 58 per cent. turnout at the election indicates that despite all his communications, he is not able to encourage people to participate in the democratic process to the extent to which they do in some other constituencies.

Jim Sheridan: The right hon. Lady is an extremely experienced parliamentarian, but when we send out annual reports, as I believe she does regularly, who actually pays for them? Secondly, will she discourage Members of her party who decide not to vote for the proposals not to exceed the £7,000 limit, if the proposal is accepted?

Theresa May: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, nobody will be able to exceed the £7,000 limit, because there will be a cap, and once they have reached £7,000, no more envelopes and stationery will be available to them. On annual reports, if he would like to look at a copy of my annual report, he will see that it is paid out of my incidental expenses provision. I am able to communicate with my constituents with the expenses provisions already available to Members of Parliament.

Jo Swinson: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Theresa May: I will give way one more time, and then I will make some progress.

Jo Swinson: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. She makes the point that the IEP enables us to communicate with constituents. Does she accept that for some Members, perhaps those in London or other areas with very high rents, the IEP is not sufficient to enable them to do that? It would perhaps be better to deal with those who suffer from that problem by providing a different rate of IEP for people with particularly high rent rates. That would be better than using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and increasing the expenses for everyone.

Theresa May: The hon. Lady makes a valid point: many Members who represent constituencies similar to mine, Maidenhead in the south-east, find it difficult, within the IEP, to rent premises in the constituency and have sufficient funds available to do the other things for which the IEP is intended. That is a separate issue, and the Senior Salaries Review Body might well consider it an issue for Members of Parliament that is to be dealt with in an entirely different way.
	To go back to the issue of high spending by some Members of Parliament on stationery and supplies, I—and many others, I suspect—question how Members with very large claims are able to use that amount of stationery and envelopes while staying within current rules. Of course we are all aware of cases that have come before the Committee on Standards and Privileges or the Serjeant at Arms on the potential misuse of stationery and envelopes—that is, their use in ways that should not be paid for by the taxpayer. Indeed, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has said that the misuse of Members' allowances is the most common accusation relating to sleaze. He says:
	"In recent times, there has perhaps been more of a focus on complaints alleging the improper use of parliamentary allowances."
	I would ask the Government why, if that is already a serious problem, they support adding to it by creating the new allowance. Of course political communication is necessary, but it must be funded by the parties and not the taxpayer. Otherwise, we run the serious risk of favouring incumbent politicians at the expense of their rivals and opponents.
	I would say to the Leader of the House that it is strange that he is supporting a new allowance for incumbent Members at the very time when the Government are supporting caps on local campaigning expenditure for their political opponents. Some people have described the communication allowance as a "save our seats" fund. I would not say that, because I am not sure that anything will save Labour seats if the Chancellor is its leader, but we need to make sure that taxpayers' money is not used illegitimately for electoral advantage.
	Members will undoubtedly argue that in modern times politicians must communicate more with their constituents, and I certainly agree, but modern times also offer modern means of communication, and those do not necessarily involve spending great sums of taxpayers' money. Indeed, Members increasingly rely not on post and the press, but on websites, e-mail, blogs, text messages, and social networking services such as Facebook.

Martin Salter: On that theme, does the right hon. Lady agree—and will she read into the record—that it is fundamentally wrong for a Member of Parliament's annual report to include a party political logo?

Theresa May: The rules are absolutely clear on what can, and cannot, be included in an hon. Member's annual report.

Martin Salter: That is a no, then.

Theresa May: As I have made clear, the rules are absolutely clear on what can, and cannot, be included in annual reports. Many hon. Members ask the Department of Finance and Administration, as I do, to check the text of annual reports to ensure that we do indeed abide by the rules and do not risk going outside them.
	I accept that the role of a modern Member of Parliament is very different from that of previous generations of politicians. We are all familiar with the stories of times gone by. Enoch Powell used to compose handwritten letters to constituents in the Library.  [ Interruption. ] My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) is doing his Enoch Powell impersonation from a sedentary position—and very good it is too. I remember a story about a former Member who used to read his constituents' letters on the Terrace so that he could drop them into the river. I suppose that that is one way of keeping communication costs down, but I do not imagine that many Members would keep their seats for long by doing so these days.
	I accept that the rules need to be adapted to reflect modern circumstances. For example, it is odd that if we receive 50 letters on a particular subject, we are supposed to write 50 different replies to meet the rules about circulars. It is sensible that that should change. If we receive letters about a planning application from 10 houses in a small street, we are not allowed to write to the other houses in the street. It is sensible that that should change. As Members, we are increasingly involved with community groups, campaigns and social action projects. It is sensible that we should be permitted to contact them without waiting for them to approach us. There are therefore good reasons for changing the rules on the expenditure of Members' allowances, but there is little justification for increasing Members' budgets. My personal preference is for Members to be given a single budget that would cover office costs, communications and stationery and for them to be free to choose how they spend it within the rules and within the budget. That would get round the rather strange situation that will arise, and to which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred, in which there will be a limit on the number of prepaid envelopes that can be used by hon. Members. However, they can use other allowances to communicate through the post with their constituents and to buy postage stamps for that purpose. Indeed, they can vire money from their staffing allowance to do so. I think that there is a reason for changing the rules, but I do not think that there is a reason for introducing a new communications allowance, which will enhance the role of incumbents.
	May I touch briefly on the motion on the tabling of questions during September? If Parliament does not sit in September, it is absolutely right that Members should have the opportunity to hold Ministers to account. The system for questions and statements last year was a welcome intervention, and I am sure that the House is grateful to the Leader of the House for introducing it. As with last year, this year's motion proposes that Members should table questions for three days for answer on three subsequent days. I see no reason why Members should not be able to table questions throughout the recess, and the Leader of the House should consider that. I hoped that the changes this year would extend last year's opportunities, and I am disappointed that they do not do so. As the party conference season evolves, the need for the House to have such a long recess may disappear. I would not argue that conferences themselves should disappear, although I gather that that happened to the Labour party spring conference this year, but I would certainly argue for a change of approach to them. Conferences are not a chance for a holiday, as some people have viewed them in the past, but an opportunity for healthy political debate. I have long made the case for conferences to be held at weekends and in different locations to enable that to take place.

John Bercow: I agree that right hon. and hon. Members certainly ought to be able to table written questions throughout the recess. Given that, on the whole, the Leader of the House, in common with a number of his predecessors, has been pretty demanding of ministerial colleagues in asserting the need for timeous replies, does my right hon. Friend agree that he should be no less exacting in his requirements of Ministers for answers to questions during the recess than he would be for answers to questions during term-time?

Theresa May: I entirely agree. Indeed, it is the manner in which the Leader of the House has shown himself willing both to place requirements on his ministerial colleagues and to accede to requests from the House for greater timeliness of responses from ministerial colleagues that leads me to hope that, in relation to questions in September, he will make just those points to his ministerial colleagues, and reconsider limiting the opportunities for questions during the recess to only three days.

Jack Straw: On the first point made by the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), yes, I will seek to ensure that all those questions are answered in a timely way. That was generally the case in September, but there were some exceptions, which we followed up. As I recall, particular exceptions concerned Departments that had been overwhelmed by questions. However, the Departments are there to answer questions, and that is what is expected of them.
	On the hon. Gentleman's second concern, it is just a practical point, but may I make it clear to the House that I do not regard those arrangements as set in stone? They ought to be kept under regular review. My concern, in tabling the resolution as a permanent one is to ensure that there is a facility for questions in September. If we can extend it, so much the better.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that response. As I said, he is always willing to listen to the House, and I am grateful for what he said on the matter.
	Holding the Government to account and how we do so and do our full job as Members of Parliament are what today's votes are about. However, like the curate's egg, the motions are good in part. As I said, the opportunity for questions in September is welcome, and we will support it. The rules regarding Members' allowances undoubtedly need updating, and I certainly support changing them, but we cannot, and will not, support a new taxpayer-funded allowance that risks becoming a spin budget for incumbent MPs.

Martin Salter: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). She may say that she cannot, and will not, support that allowance, but I guarantee that a large proportion of Opposition Members will not have any problems at all in claiming it, irrespective of the way in which they choose to vote today.
	This morning I had the pleasure of giving evidence to the Modernisation Committee with the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow). We submitted a radical prospectus to assist the Leader of the House and colleagues on the Modernisation Committee in their inquiry into strengthening the role of Back Benchers. As part of that radical prospectus, we drew attention to the fact that the role of a Member of Parliament has changed out of all proportion in the past 20 or 30 years. In fact, when the Leader of the House skilfully bashed into the long grass the dreadful Roy Jenkins report on electoral reform, he drew attention to the figures—the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) will be interested in this—on right hon. and hon. Members' postage. Those figures were drawn from the House of Commons Post Office itself, and are quite illuminating. In the 1950s, the average number of letters received by a Member of Parliament was in the order of 15 to 30 a week. As we all know, thanks to the delightful person who invented e-mail and thanks to all the other electronic devices, as well as a general increase in demand from constituents, that figure is now between 300 and 500 a week.
	There is a resource implication for a Member of Parliament's communication role. We are communicators, certainly: one of the greatest skills that we need as Members of Parliament is to be able to communicate effectively—and, I would say, briefly. In evidence that we cited to the Modernisation Committee this morning, Professor Philip Cowley said:
	"As a general point with the pull of the constituency—and the constituency is becoming more important for lots of reasons, one of which is an increasing expectation—Parliament...is to respond".
	Professor Lord Norton of Louth, who is a constitutional expert—

Graham Stuart: A great man.

Martin Salter: Indeed— [ Interruption ] —and a Conservative— [ Interruption. ] I shall try to make myself heard above the heckling from the Leader of the House. Professor Lord Norton of Louth said in his evidence to the Modernisation Committee:
	"If the constituency demand increases—which it has, decade by decade—if you cannot close off demand, you have to manage the supply side...There is...a resource implication."
	The problem with the arguments put forward by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead is that she is talking about closing off the supply side. I have some problems with the notion of putting a limit on freepost envelopes. I accept that there were abuses of the system, but that would choke off the supply side. In a representative democracy, surely the people are the boss. They determine how busy we are by the way they relate to us.

Greg Hands: The hon. Gentleman describes a situation that is familiar to me—the increased incoming correspondence to me as a Member of Parliament. I represent the second largest constituency in Britain in population terms. It is a very urban constituency which generates an awful lot of casework. What we are talking about here is something different. The hon. Gentleman is speaking of allowing MPs to engage in reactive communication with constituents, which I am in favour of. That is quite different from proactive communication—unsolicited communication with constituents—for which I think there is little demand.

Martin Salter: I commend the hon. Gentleman for his assiduous work in his constituency, but I draw his attention to some of the figures in the tables—for example, for 2005-06 and other tables showing the published list of expenditure on postage. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), with whom I have discussed the matter in some detail, had a petition regarding the closure of Ashford hospital, a place that I know well, with 25,000 signatures. He needs to react to that. The current system would probably stop him doing that.
	The hon. Member for Castle Point was reacting to his constituents. It is fundamentally wrong to describe the allowance as solely for proactive work—solely for self-promotion. What the hon. Member for Castle Point described was doing his job effectively, not allowing constituents to put their names to a round-robin letter or petition about a matter of considerable local concern and letting that disappear into the ether. If Members of Parliament end up having to put a notice in the local paper saying, "Sorry. We've busted the allowance. We're not allowed to write to you till next year," what sort of representative democracy is that?

Stewart Jackson: I commend to the hon. Gentleman the words of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who is in the Chamber, who described the proposals as "vanity publishing" when they were last discussed. Surely it is incumbent upon the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) and others who support the proposals to explain to my constituents, who are puzzled, why the Government are seeking to curtail legitimate campaigning with respect to third-party contributions to campaigning between elections, yet expect taxpayers who may not have voted for that Member's party to support that expenditure—that vanity publishing—with taxpayers' money?

Martin Salter: If the hon. Gentleman seriously thinks that the activities of the Countryside Alliance—or, in America, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth—was legitimate political campaigning, he is living in cloud cuckoo land. That was about intimidation and buying support.
	In this technological era, we need to be able to respond quickly and effectively to organised lobby groups. As the technology has moved on, so our response is tracked electronically and very carefully. We know of the website TheyWorkForYou, which tracks responses and how quickly we get back to constituents. More and more, we are living in a goldfish bowl as a result of technology, and the advanced communication techniques used by non-governmental organisations, interest groups, community associations and, yes, political parties. It is wrong that Members of Parliament are expected to do their job, to take the kicks and the brickbats, without the ability to respond in at least a semi-21st century manner.

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman mentions the new technology, which has increased the postbag of many MPs—the electronic postbag. Does he accept that responding in this electronic age does not necessarily have the same resource implications in terms of finance, because e-mailing is next to free? There is certainly a staff implication for dealing with that resource, but it will not necessarily always require staff. In some ways it could be argued that our postage bills should be coming down.

Martin Salter: I agree with the hon. Lady. However, many people may e-mail us for information and in response we may mail out a Select Committee report. We could mail it our in electronic form, but I find that my constituents do not thank me when I send them weighty documents that crash their systems, and still welcome old fashioned forms of communication.

Bob Spink: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He argues that, from time to time, issues arise in Members' constituencies and Members must have the ability to respond. He will know, as he has the figures in front of him, that last year I spent £3,800 on my envelopes, which was slightly less than the average, so I certainly am not a serial abuser of the system. This year I will spend considerably more because of the issue of the LNG plant on Canvey Island. I am grateful to the Government for facilitating the good service that I give to my constituents.

Martin Salter: The hon. Gentleman is distinguishing himself in the debate through his contributions. I would go further. We should turn the question round and ask why are focusing on him, or the hon. Member for Spelthorne or sometimes my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore)—who, I concede, invites attention.
	I would focus on hon. Members who are happy to draw a £60,000 salary and appear to have a zero against their postage budget head. I am not sure what the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Galloway) is doing on behalf of his constituents. I am not sure what Sinn Fein Members are doing on behalf of their constituents. They seem to be happy to claim every other allowance, but can get through a whole year without writing to a single constituent.
	The hon. Member for Castle Point probably will not want to agree with my next point. I have been looking at figures for Members of Parliament who are happy to claim their full salary, are happy to claim the full allowances, but also appear to have a number of outside interests. They are not necessarily giving time to this place. They are not necessarily being conscientious. How can they be, if they are serving three, five, six or, in the case of one hon. Member, 18 different paymasters?
	Information dug up by a former Member a couple of years ago shows that Members of Parliament with outside interests participate in only 65 per cent. of Divisions, whereas those of us who are full-time MPs, who spend all our allowances on services for our constituents and who are diligent about what we do—the vast majority of us, in all parts of the House—participate in 91 per cent. of Divisions.
	I would take more seriously some of the protestations from Opposition Members if they were prepared to examine the real scandals, such as Members of Parliament moonlighting or drawing salaries and not writing a single letter to their constituents in the course of the year. Perhaps that is what the debate should focus on.
	The debate and reports of the Members Estimate Committee were informed by a previous report from the Modernisation Committee to which it was my privilege to contribute. That report, published in June 2004, was entitled "Connecting Parliament with the Public". The report was informed by a questionnaire that was sent out to all Members of the House of Commons which covered the rules relating to the use of prepaid envelopes and direct mail. What emerged was that as MPs cannot communicate with constituents on matters on which they themselves are statutory consultees, write to their constituents about matters before Parliament, or consult them about the implementation and the effect of legislation on their lives and their communities, it is important to amend the House rules.
	The right hon. Member for Maidenhead conceded that the definition of a circular communication was nonsense, and that individual letters to 50 people on the same issue will clearly not happen. We have all been breaking the rules. Let us be honest—we have all been at it, and I more than most, probably, because it is common sense to do so. It cannot be right that as Members of Parliament we have less ability to engage with our constituents than councillors. Councillors in my constituency and across the country are perfectly within their rights to ask the Member's secretary to mail out, at council tax payers' expense, a survey about a particular issue in their area. We cannot do that because we are not allowed to be proactive. We are restricted to replying to people who have written to us.
	How have I gone about overcoming that in my constituency? I have got hold of every petition on God's earth. I have made sure that huge numbers of people have come to me. I have been incredibly busy. I have a substantial database. That gives me the ability, within the rules, to mail out on a range of issues to an awful lot of people, but it is a make-work exercise. What I like about the new rules for the communications allowance is that I will have the ability to be proactive in an appropriate manner. How can it be right for all of us as consultees on post office closures not to be able to communicate that fact through the House of Commons postage system to our electors and communities who may lose a post office? That is a subject on which Opposition Members get extremely aerated, and rightly so.
	I can write to 500 people telling them what I have done on their behalf and taking up their case, but only if they contact me first, yet a local councillor can be proactive about such issues. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead is right to say that we need some changes, but they will require resources because, as the hon. Member for Castle Point observed, proactive constituency work may have a resource implication when issues blow up in the constituency at any given point.

Stewart Jackson: One thing that the hon. Gentleman can never be accused of is hiding his light under a bushel; I think that he is putting in an entry for parliamentarian of the year. Does he agree that we can ameliorate the problem of using surveys simply by removing any questions on voting intentions? I understand that surveys were abused, particularly by Liberal Democrats, who brought the system into disrepute by including questions on voting intention questions, which led to its being curtailed.

Martin Salter: The hon. Gentleman needs to be careful, as I have seen many examples of Conservative literature—I have some here—which are clearly in breach of the rules, and have sought voting intentions. Yes, the Lib Dems are famous for it, but no party is without guilt. I can honestly say that in the survey work that I have done, using the incidental expenses provision—the resources of the House of Commons— I have never sought to establish party political affiliation. In fact, some general surveys are deeply suspect. I hope that the Members Estimate Committee will take cognisance of that fact, and of the fact that they can be cross-referenced with political canvass returns.
	We need the right to be proactive and to gauge opinion on issues such as hospital closures and massive planning cases, as my new best friend, the hon. Member for Castle Point has highlighted, but general requests for attitudes, which can be put into a computer system to see whether someone might be classified as a swing voter, are an abuse of the parliamentary system, and we have rules of procedure to deal with that.

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman says that the need to communicate and take up issues through petitions and so forth may lead to resource increases, but that need not be the case. For example, we are both campaigning on First Great Western rail services in our constituencies. Last year I had a 2,500-signature petition on that issue, and 900 signatures came through the website. Would not it be helpful if the House accepted e-petitions, so that we could reduce the cost of responding to our constituents? I hope that the Procedure Committee will make that change.

Martin Salter: I recommend that the right hon. Lady read the excellent evidence given today by myself and the hon. Member for Buckingham to the Modernisation Committee, which, sadly, she was not there to hear. If she had found the time to attend—she was obviously sending letters to her constituents—she would have heard us make the case for a proper petition process in this place. I also note that, according to page 5 of the report, the provisions that can be funded from the new communications allowance include e-petitions and e-communications, which represent an increasing element of our casework.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is making a forceful and powerful speech. However, I suggest that we need not be shy about this. The amount of constituency correspondence and the number of single issue campaigns instigated within our constituencies are inexorably on the increase, and there will inevitably be a cost attached, by whatever means we respond to them. Let me remind him of what I said in evidence this morning, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead was unable to hear: despite all the people who e-mail us, we have to be conscious that there are still substantial numbers of people who will continue to write through the pigeon post, and who deserve every bit as timeous a reply as the e-mail enthusiasts. That costs, and we should say so.

Martin Salter: I could not agree more. In fact, as a renowned Luddite myself, I take some pleasure in ensuring that I respond, usually on the basis of need but certainly in date order, to Mrs. Miggins with her spidery writing, who is every bit as entitled to my attention as someone—we all have these people among those we represent, sadly—who e-mails an hour and a half after their original e-mail, usually at 4 in the morning, to ask why we have not replied.  [ Interruption. ] From Estonia, in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound). He has a big personal vote there.
	The right hon. Member for Maidenhead protested a bit too much with her array of soundbites on what a dreadful day for democracy the approval of this allowance would be. Any abuse of parliamentary facilities is to be regretted, including the abuse of luncheon clubs and dining facilities. I understand that we are to hear more about that in weeks to come, and there could be an awful lot of humble pie eaten on the Conservative Benches.
	Some Members of Parliament are very assiduous in their correspondence, and some are not. There is a massive range in the amounts of money spent on postage. Just for the record, last year I came in at £5,500—well within the average. Some Members made it up to £37,000, while many struggled to make £300 or £400. There is no golden rule as to how we do our job. Different constituencies have different demands, and different issues will bubble up. This set of proposals will limit the activities of some of the high spenders; it is not, as Opposition Members suggest, about mis-spenders. As the hon. Member for Buckingham said, we do not have to be shy about this. People respond to our reaching out, and to good, non-partisan, informative communication. We should welcome our ability to compete on equal terms with those—sometimes lobby groups, certainly local councillors—who have more resources at their disposal than we do.

Graham Stuart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the website TheyWorkForYou.com and its sister site WriteToThem.com list data on the length of time that people on its system take to respond to letters? Is he further aware that of the worst 50 MPs in terms of slowness of response, most are Labour Members? Conservative Members fear that MPs of whatever party who are not assiduous will be given £10,000 to spend proactively, through their staff, on propaganda that they will send out to give a misleading sense of their activities when they are not providing the basic services for their constituents that the hon. Gentleman so passionately espouses.

Martin Salter: I have two points in response to that rather poor intervention. First, as we have heard, TheyWorkForYou.com gives a very inaccurate representation of people's contributions to the work of Parliament. A speech is recorded with the same validity as an intervention. Many of us with relatively high postage bills are assiduous in our correspondence with Ministers when taking up issues on behalf of our constituents, and get a lot more information as a result of writing letters and presenting an argument than we ever will from a parliamentary question. One can do both, but TheyWorkForYou.com does not indicate in the slightest how assiduous a Member has been in corresponding with a Minister or a Department on a specific issue.
	Secondly, if the hon. Gentleman thinks that one can drive a coach and horses through these rules, I remind him that they were drawn up on a unanimous basis by the Members Estimate Committee, with input from the right hon. Member for Maidenhead. Which part of them would he change?

Graham Stuart: I was specifically referring to the sister site, which measures the length of time that Members take to respond to letters, and which gives a fairly dismal reading for a number of Members who fail to respond properly to their constituents in terms of basic written communication. The fear is that people like that will be given this £10,000 to spend, through their staff, on propaganda, which is a far cry from using it for the positive purposes that the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

Martin Salter: I wish the hon. Gentleman could make his mind up: he is either attacking hon. Members who do not use the postage, or blaming those who use the postage too much. He cannot have it both ways.
	I am glad that the hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) is now in the Chamber, as it enables me to cite an annual report that has been circulating in the borough of Reading. It helps us to understand why the right hon. Member for Maidenhead was circumspect in her answer about the use of party logos. As we can see, this is a report from "Rob Wilson, MP" and it includes the Conservative party logo of Reading, East Conservatives and is funded through the incidental expenses provision—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Using visual aids in the Chamber is discouraged. Will the hon. Gentleman explain what he wants to say?

Martin Salter: It includes the Conservative party logo, which I would suggest is probably a breach of the—

Robert Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Martin Salter: As I have named him, I certainly will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Robert Wilson: The hon. Gentleman should be made aware that this was all checked out and run through the correct departments. Also, I have a confirmatory e-mail from the department, which confirms that the discreet use of logos is allowed on parliamentary reports. I therefore expect an immediate retraction and an apology.

Martin Salter: I think then that we need to consider the promotion of council candidates within annual reports. I think there is an issue—[Hon. Members: "Withdraw."]—about putting out parliamentary reports during election periods. I am very happy to concede that if the hon. Gentleman has had his annual report checked out, that is fine, but I would question as a matter of principle whether it is right for MPs to circulate annual reports, featuring pictures of councillors or council candidates, during an election period. I think that that is something that the Members Estimate Committee should address. It is certainly something that I have always been very careful to avoid.

Stewart Jackson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not normal convention and good manners that when a Member cites another Member in respect of contentious issues, they should give the hon. Member to whom they are referring reasonable notice of that fact before the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is always difficult to know exactly what is going to come up in a debate. Any hon. Member addressing the House is entirely responsible for the words he uses and the matters he raises. As far as I am concerned, nothing unparliamentary was said in those last remarks. I would say, however, that when we start to particularise and identify individual Members in a debate, there is a danger of going too far, so I suggest that it is better to keep our remarks more general.

Martin Salter: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I read it into the record that I was very careful not to name any hon. Members to whom I had failed to give advance notice unless they were in the Chamber The hon. Member for Reading, East came into the Chamber.
	To conclude, the arguments against the communications allowance are, to say the least, confused and contradictory. The evidence that we need the tools to do the job properly is overwhelming and high spenders are going to be limited. Members would do well to reflect on the Hansard Society Commission on the Communication of Parliamentary Democracy, which said:
	"Voters continue to respect their local MPs and much of the effective communication of what Parliament does, especially at the local level and in the local media, is currently through the constituency member. The level of informed, transparent and engaged democracy that any citizen of the 21(st) century has a right to expect, is, of necessity, comparatively expensive. Cut-price democracy will never represent much of a bargain."
	I want to echo the words of the hon. Member for Buckingham: we should not be modest about giving ourselves the resources to do our jobs properly on behalf of our constituents.

David Heath: I thank the Leader of the House for introducing this short debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), who it is great to see back in the post that he previously occupied. He always did a wonderful job, particularly on pre-recess debates, and it is good that he will have the opportunity to exercise his skills again so soon in his revised career. I am sure it will thrill him.
	I shall deal with the provisions before us in ascending order of controversy. First is the proposal to appoint Sir Graham Bright as managing trustee of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. I do not believe that any Member will wish to disagree with that. I enter just one caveat; it does not relate to Sir Graham. I thought that we had established a little while ago as a matter of protocol—it has been happening in statutory instruments Committees when dealing with the confirmation of an appointment—that it is appropriate to circulate to those who will make the decision a curriculum vitae of the individual concerned. We should not assume that everybody knows the person. In this instance, the explanatory notes might have provided a brief resumé of Sir Graham Bright's career in order to allow Members to take an informed decision. Had that happened, I am sure that they would have come to the view that I and the rest of the House share—that he will be an admirable member of the pension fund panel.
	On Select Committee reports and the period of embargo, I have no problem with changing the rules if that is the wish of Select Committees. I hope, however, that it will not become normal practice to extend the period of embargo, because that runs the risk of Select Committees falling into the same trap that Ministers so often fall into—of briefing before a report is published to an inappropriate extent. I can envisage circumstances in which a longer period of embargo may be sensible, but I hope that it will not be the norm.
	On notice of questions, I wholly welcome what has been done to normalise, as it were, the ability to table questions in recess. I am still not reconciled to the long summer recess and I still want to see changes to our political calendar to enable us to sit more regularly and therefore avoid being unable for a quarter of the year to hold the Government to account. However, given that we have what we have, it is right to be able to table questions. I would like to see it extended and I believe that the Leader of the House opened the door to that.
	There is a quid pro quo, and I suggest to right hon. and hon. Members that they need to exercise more care about their prolixity in putting down questions. We all know the reality: often it is not Members but their researchers who think up jolly good questions in abundance. I am not sure that having so many questions and so few answers of any profundity necessarily improves understanding of what the Government are doing. Perhaps an element of self-denying ordinance might be helpful.

John Bercow: I agree that a self-denying ordinance would be a good idea so that literally reams upon reams upon reams of written questions are not tabled. To some extent, it is a matter for Members to exercise a degree of control over the operation of their own offices, but as a self-confessed technophobe who is seeking late in life to overcome this condition, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that there are any technological means by which one could prevent the onward transmission of huge quantities of material, of which a Member may not be aware? In other words, are there not blocks that one could operate?

David Heath: I am sure that there are, but I am wary of suggesting that that should be the case because there are sometimes very good reasons why a number of questions need to be tabled. What I am really appealing to is the good sense of Members to realise that there are limits in tabling questions, but nevertheless to welcome the opportunity to table them. Of course, when one was required to put down a question by going to the Table Office with one's hand-scrawled note and signature at the bottom, that was itself a limiting factor, which we have now moved away from.
	I want to move on to the contentious issue of the communications allowance. I believe that Members on both sides of the House will have a free vote on the motion, as we always do on House matters, and I have had no indication of how my right hon. and hon. Friends intend to vote. We have to be extremely careful when we are seen by those outside to be awarding ourselves yet another allowance of substantial size without any clear indication of how it is to be spent, or of how it will be of advantage to our constituents rather than to us as incumbents in parliamentary seats.
	The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) mentioned that the imbalance between the cost of providing office space in different constituencies was not reflected in the present allowance structure. That needs to be addressed, as it curtails the amount of money available to some hon. Members in pursuing their constituency or parliamentary work, simply because so much of their budget is pre-empted by office accommodation costs that they cannot avoid.
	The proposed communications allowance represents a significant sum of money. The last time we discussed the matter, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire was absolutely right to mention the amount of £6 million; as we have heard, the Leader of the House pooh-poohed her suggestion that it would be anything like that amount. My hon. Friend has repeated today that it is to be £6 million, and the Leader of the House has invited us to do some elementary arithmetic, apparently without having noticed that £6 million is the discounted figure. It is the figure associated with the normal take-up of allowances and is therefore the figure that the taxpayer is likely to have to stump up.
	The rules—and how they are applied—are key to many people's view of how the money is to be spent. There is a nagging suspicion among many of us that the proposal is partly a reaction to the massive overspend on postage by certain Members. I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation of how some of the figures mentioned in relation to the spending on postage by individual Members can possibly be reconciled with the present rules. Obviously it must be possible; otherwise, the Fees Office and the Serjeant at Arms would have investigated, and there would have been consequences. I find it difficult to understand, however.
	The hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) argued persuasively for better communication with our constituents. He clearly uses the rules in order to provide such communication, and he revealed that his postage costs were about £5,500. If he can give the kind of service that he described for that figure, it is hard to understand how a multiple of six or seven times that amount can still be within the rules. I am not accusing any hon. Members of abusing the rules. I am simply saying that I cannot understand how such amounts can be reached.
	While we are talking about the rules, I want to say clearly to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson)—who has scuttled from the Chamber because he knew that I was going to bring this matter up—that I found his intervention on the hon. Member for Reading, West offensive in the extreme. The clear implication of what he said was that the Liberal Democrats were sending out surveys on voting intentions at the taxpayer's expense, but I know of no instances of that being done. It would be against the rules, and there would have been complaints if it had been done—

Graham Stuart: It is in the past.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman might say that, but I sat on the Standards and Privileges Committee, as did my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), and we do not recall any such cases.

Shailesh Vara: rose—

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman, who is fairly new to the House, obviously has different information.

Shailesh Vara: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) has a neighbouring constituency to mine, and he has just spoken to me. Unfortunately, there has been some confusion, because some constituents have come to see him, and have only just realised that I am their Member of Parliament. So he has gone outside to address a matter that has just arisen. There is therefore a legitimate and genuine reason why he has left the Chamber, and I felt that it was important to clarify for the record that he had not just scuttled way, as the hon. Gentleman suggested.

David Heath: I understand what the hon. Gentleman has said. Perhaps when the hon. Member for Peterborough returns he will make an apology, just as he demanded from others, for what the Liberal Democrats consider to be the offensive suggestion that we have repeatedly abused the present system, apparently with impunity. I know of no such instances, and if the hon. Gentleman has evidence, he should make an application to the Standards and Privileges Committee.

Martin Salter: Is the hon. Gentleman looking forward, like me, to the conclusion of the investigation into the use of Commons dining facilities for party political purposes—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must repeat, or at least touch on, what I said earlier. It would be sensible if we now concentrated on the main matter before the House and stopped personalising and being quite so anecdotal.

David Heath: I entirely agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will certainly try to ensure that that is the case, but I am not prepared to allow accusations to be made against my colleagues without the opportunity of a response and, I hope, of an apology from the Member concerned if he cannot substantiate the claims that he made.
	I shall move on to the proposed new rules. It is unfortunate that paragraph 18 of the report by the Members Estimate Committee mentions a "separate, comprehensive booklet" without providing a draft of such a booklet, because that is key to our understanding of how the rules will work. In an intervention on the Leader of the House, I referred to the limit on pre-paid envelopes. It is part of the quid pro quo that there will be a communications allowance, but there will also be a limit on the use of pre-paid envelopes, never mind the fact that the vast majority of Members get nowhere near to the present limit—including the hon. Member for Reading, West, who is well below the limit—and that there would therefore be no change in their behaviour. That means that we shall effectively be getting £10,000 extra, with no balancing factor.
	It is also extraordinary that, if we reach the new limit on pre-paid envelopes, we shall still be able to use the taxpayer's money to pay for more envelopes and stamps, to achieve exactly the same result. This is a Humpty-Dumpty situation in which the words mean exactly what we want them to mean. We are setting a limit, but it is a limit that will apply only if there happens to be a pre-paid frank on the envelope. Otherwise, we can use the taxpayer's money as much as we want within the other limits—

Jo Swinson: We can already.

David Heath: Yes, we can, but the proposals are supposed to provide a balance and a rationale for increasing our expenditure by a further £10,000 per Member—£6 million in all—in order to put the balance into effect.

Jo Swinson: My hon. Friend mentioned that this is apparently a cap, but in real terms for most Members it will represent an increase in what they are able to spend on stamps. The booklet says that the proposals will limit annual expenditure to a maximum of £4 million, but I am not sure who has done the maths on that. If we multiply £7,000 by 646, we get a figure of just over £4.5 million, so perhaps £4 million is a more accurate estimate of what would be spent, if we base it on people spending up to 90 per cent. of the allowance. If we were to spend £4 million as opposed to £3 million, that would represent a 33 per cent. increase in postage costs, apparently in a bid to try to clamp down on some of the worst abuses or overspends. This is just another example of additional money being put forward that the taxpayer is going to have to fund.

David Heath: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly valid point. I would like to make a countervailing point, however. The hon. Member for Reading, West made the perfectly proper point that certain things that are against the rules at the moment ought to be within the rules. The point was also made by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink). When we want to respond properly to petitions or large round robins, or when we want to draw the attention of our constituents to something that is likely to have a profound effect on them, we do not have the freedoms that I enjoyed, for example, when I was the member of Somerset county council for Frome, North. I could send a letter round to my constituents then, but I cannot do so now unless I pay for it myself and print it on the Reisograph. If I want to include in it a question about voting intentions—please will the hon. Member for Peterborough note this—I am perfectly entitled to do so.

Graham Stuart: Do not many Members fear that the new system will see an increase in the number of stamps used? Do not they also fear that the propaganda allowance of £10,000 will have a corrosive effect on democracy, because incumbents will have access to media that their opponents can never have, thereby further reinforcing incumbency? The Labour party is trying to force the proposal through so that further propaganda can be provided for those who are currently failing to deliver a suitable service to constituents.

David Heath: The point about incumbency is a potent one. People fear that the proposal would simply reinforce incumbency. Clearly, it is a given that it reinforces incumbency, but the question is whether it should do that in order to allow Members to do their job more effectively. One's views on that will be almost entirely coloured by whether one is a Member of the House who uses the resources or a prospective candidate who does not have such access.
	I reject, however, the claims made by some Conservative Members of an easy equivalence between this and the abuse of funding in party political campaigning reflected by the massive influx of funds from third parties or central offices into local constituencies, particularly marginal ones, between elections. That is wrong, and I hope that we will address that in our debates on party funding. The issue under discussion, however, has nothing to do with that. There is no equivalence at all. One can argue cogently against the provision without accepting for one moment such off-balance-sheet party funding to local parties, which is against the spirit of our election law.

Graham Stuart: The hon. Gentleman has just argued against third party funding to allow those in opposition to campaign against a sitting MP, but incumbent MPs have—to pick a number out of the air—£100,000-worth of state support to be seen to be performing their role, and their members of staff work with constituents. MPs have an enormous advantage. In comparison with the sums under discussion, the sums of money guided to target seats by other parties are minuscule. It is right and proper in a democracy that the activities of those who want to challenge incumbent MPs can be funded.

David Heath: I find it difficult to understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, because I do not see any campaign funding going to hon. Members to enable them to do their job as MPs. I do not see the people who work in my office, whom he includes in his figure, as campaigning when they answer letters about the Child Support Agency or the Rural Payments Agency. I do not see the provision of that office and my nine surgeries each month as campaigning opportunities, and I hope that he does not do so either. I hope that, if he really thinks about it, he will not see the money that goes to support Members of Parliament to do their job as campaigning money. Under the rules, we are not allowed to campaign using the funds available. If this money is granted by the House, one hopes that the reputations of those Members who use it will be enhanced, although, in some instances, I suspect that that will not be the case. To that extent only, it is money used in campaigning. It cannot be used, however, for openly party political purposes.
	I would have liked the draft guidance to be before the House, so that we could have a clear idea of how the rules will be applied. I would have liked clear assurances that the rules will be applied much more stringently than they are at present. I notice the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee nodding vigorously at that point, because he and I have experience of trying to police such matters in the House.
	I worry about the naivety of some of the report's suggestions of items that the rules would properly allow.

Bob Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: No, because we have nearly reached the time limit for the debate.
	I want to draw attention to one thing that is allowed, and one thing that is not allowed. According to paragraph 12 of the report, hon. Members will be able to use the communications allowance to meet the cost of "questionnaires and surveys". According to paragraph 14, however, the allowance cannot be used to meet the cost of petitions, surveys or questionnaires if they are
	"associated principally with national campaigning or local elections."
	It is naive to a high degree to believe that the questionnaires and surveys issued will not somehow tie in with national campaigning issues for every Member who uses the money to meet that cost. If a party is running a massive campaign on health service cuts, for example, a survey that may relate to local health service provision will nevertheless tie in with that. If we are to allow that sort of material, which is questionable, let us openly accept that within a national campaigning profile its use will be ambiguous.
	Lastly, some Labour Members have suggested that any Member who votes against the allowance this evening—because they are not satisfied with the details or even the principle of it—would be hypocritical if they subsequently used any of it. That is simply nonsense, and a misreading of what the House is for. We take decisions, express our opinions and vote. Once the matter has been voted on, however, individual Members, whether they thought a proposal was a good idea or not, have a duty to their constituents to use the funds available.  [Laughter.] I make the point in all seriousness. I might disagree with a lot of provisions. I sometimes vote against them and do not, if they would be to my personal advantage, take them. For instance, I voted against the pension enhancement, and refused to take it. I know that many Members voted against it and still took it. This issue, however, does not relate to my or any other Member's personal position, but to the service that will be provided to constituents. Therefore, I hope that accusations of hypocrisy will not be made against hon. Members who choose to vote against the proposal today.

Sadiq Khan: To be consistent, should not the hon. Gentleman argue that a Member of Parliament who votes against an extra £10,000 to communicate with his constituents, but who uses it once it is granted, is not fulfilling the obligation to which he refers?

David Heath: Not if, as I believe, the present arrangements for allowances, with a few minor changes in the rules on how they can be used, which we have discussed, allow for appropriate communication with the electorate. The House will either accept or reject the package. Many of my hon. Friends will vote for it, and many will vote against it. That is a decision for them, as it is for each Member. We work within the allowances system that we have in order to provide the best service for our constituents. There are better ways of achieving the objective, which I share with the Leader of the House, of allowing better communication with our electorate. My personal opinion is that the proposal is not the right way. I do not encourage others to share that view, but this has been a useful debate, and I look forward to the result with interest.

George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), and I shall refer to some of the points that he made.
	I can tell the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) that some of us will have to claim under the communications allowance for activities that we are undertaking at present and which are paid for by the incidental expenses provision. Without wishing to spend any more money, we will have to claim under the communications allowance, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that there is no implication of hypocrisy.
	I join in the chorus of approval welcoming back the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping). At a time of preservation, conservation and recycling, it is marvellous to see him back in the post that he occupied in the 1997-2001 Parliament.
	We debate these allowances for ourselves after spending four days debating the Budget, which involved very tough decisions on public expenditure for some important public services, including education and the Home Office. People outside the House will want us to make a very good case for increased public expenditure on our services, given the background of the Budget debate.
	When he introduced the debate, the Leader of the House used the argument about disconnect to support the communication allowance. That argument can be stood on its head: we could argue perfectly well that it is our voting for more money for ourselves in this way that adds to, rather than solves, the problem of disconnect. One of the jobs of the House is to examine claims for increased expenditure. We are sent here to see how money extracted from constituents is spent. When we are the conduit for that increased expenditure, we need to be even more vigilant and demand an even higher standard of proof.
	The motion before us is the next stage in a debate that began on 1 November, in which a number of those present today took part. When we considered the matter then, it was on a motion from the Leader of the House, and no document had been brought forward. The idea had not been examined by any Select Committee or by the independent outside body charged with determining our allowances. The SSRB is, at this very moment, looking at our salaries and allowances. In a passing reference in the previous debate, the Leader of the House said:
	"I have also kept the Senior Salaries Review Body in touch with what is proposed."—[ Official Report, 1 November 2006; Vol. 451, c. 312.]
	With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that is precisely the wrong way round: the SSRB ought to be keeping him in touch with what is proposed. What is the purpose of having an independent body to make recommendations about our allowances if—unilaterally, and before its report is published—we help ourselves to higher allowances? When I intervened on him, the Leader of the House said that the proposed allowance is a new one. That is true, but a lot of the activity that it subsumes is catered for already. The right hon. Gentleman would have been on much better ground if we had waited for the SSRB's recommendations and come forward with a much more robust case than the one that he presented this afternoon.
	There is another reason why I believe it injudicious to proceed at this moment. As various hon. Members have noted, a fortnight ago Sir Haydn Phillips published his recommendations on party funding, with no agreement having been reached between the parties. There are a number of outstanding issues, one of which is a proposal for a new cap—one that does not exist at present—on what can be spent locally by a political party. That is of particular relevance where that local party is challenging an incumbent, and I quote what the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said in our earlier debate:
	"Were I a candidate for Parliament running against an incumbent who was using public funds to publish and distribute what looks to most people like campaign literature, I would be mightily upset."—[ Official Report, 1 November 2006; Vol. 451, c. 350.]
	At the very moment that the Government are seeking consensus with the Opposition parties on a new limit on what a prospective candidate can spend, they are also proposing to increase what the incumbent can spend without having to raise the money. The Leader of the House must realise that what is being proposed today will make it more difficult to secure the consensus on party funding that I know he wants.
	I shall be brief, as I know that the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) wants to contribute to the date. On a more positive note, I welcome the decision to cap the value of pre-paid envelopes and other stationery. With an average spend of £3,500, £7,000 leaves a substantial amount of head room for the majority of MPs. I hope that we can stick at that level for some time. I assume that, as the cost of postage rises, the number of free envelopes to which we are entitled will fall.
	We are told in paragraph 12 of the motion that detailed rules will follow in a new, separate and comprehensive booklet, and I welcome that. At the moment, the advice is all over the place—in the stationery catalogue, in the Green Book, in leaflets and guidance notes issued by the Serjeant at Arms Department and on that Department's intranet site. I welcome the prospect of one, comprehensive publication telling us exactly what we can and cannot do.

Bob Spink: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to intervene?

George Young: I hope that my hon. Friend does not mind if I say no, but he has made several interventions and I know that the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire wants to speak.
	If invited, the Standards and Privileges Committee stands ready to advise—as does the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—on the more detailed guidance to which the motion refers. I notice that we are not included in paragraph 12, but my Committee and the Commissioner have to interpret the rules and so would be more than happy to provide some advice on their composition.
	As various hon. Members noted, there has been a steady stream of complaints that rules have been broken in respect of postage and the IEP. We have reported on four cases during this Parliament, and the Commissioner has dealt with many more. The rules lack clarity; they are complex and they overlap. In my Committee's 10th report, we noted that
	"the significant differences of interpretation amongst Members as to the acceptable limits of party-related material that can properly be included in IEP funded material."
	What is proposed today is a considerable relaxation of what can legitimately be funded. I hope that that will be accompanied by a firm restatement of the boundary between parliamentary and party political activity, with an assertion that the new boundary should be rigorously policed. That seems to me to be an appropriate trade-off.
	Finally, I recognise that there is always a balance to be struck between the need for prudence with public expenditure—something that has not been mentioned much in the debate—and the imperative of bridging the gap between elected and elector that can undermine Parliament's legitimacy. My view remains that if we are to have a communication allowance as proposed, a far stronger case for it needs to be made than we have heard so far. As no compelling case has been made to justify an increase of £6 million in public expenditure, I propose to vote against it.

Jo Swinson: I appreciate the fact that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) kept his remarks brief. I believe that someone else wishes to speak so I, too, will try to be brief.
	As a Member of Parliament, I believe that communication is incredibly important. As a former marketing manager, perhaps I know more than many the benefits of good communication. Those of us who oppose the allowance do not say that ensuring that we are in touch with our constituents, reporting back and making sure that people in our constituencies are engaged in politics are not important parts of a Member of Parliament's job. Far from it. My problem is the cost that the taxpayer will incur. Through interventions, I have already expressed my disappointment that the communications allowance will cost an extra £6 million, with a perhaps an additional £1 million in increased postage costs. That means that the taxpayer must bear the brunt of an additional £7 million.
	Good communication with constituents does not always have to be costly. We spoke earlier about technology and leaps forward through e-mail communication and websites, which are an especially cost-effective way of keeping in touch with people. The communications allowance can be used for websites, but my website, for which I personally pay, costs only about £15 a month. Basic technology hardly costs a huge amount these days.
	Of course, local visits, which Members of Parliament often make on Fridays and the weekends are a way of communicating face to face with constituents. Dare I say it?—going back to the good old days of knocking on doors to communicate directly with individuals is perhaps one of the most potent ways of engaging people in politics. There is a role for leaflets, too. As a Liberal Democrat, I would say that. I have spent many a happy hour delivering leaflets and I shall do much more of that in the next few weeks. I enjoy doing it—it is good exercise. However, I would argue that political parties have an important role to play in funding political leaflets.
	Many of us send out an annual report funded from our parliamentary expenses. However, it is not right to increase the money by £10,000 when adequate provision is already made in our incidental expenses provision. We do not need to increase that further. We should consider the cases of Members who have problems with their office rent costs, which means that they cannot use their current expenses for incidental provision, but a total blanket increase of £7 million, even for those who do not suffer the problem, is excessive. We do not need that.
	Let us consider timing. The report suggests that there is a good case for combining the communications allowance with the allocation for pre-paid stationery in one allowance. However, it also states that although that appears attractive in the long term, the financial and administrative difficulties would delay unduly the introduction of the communications allowance. What is the rush? The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire mentioned the SSRB review. Why could we not let it reach a conclusion about the matter? Why do we need to rush the matter through? Some hon. Members may suggest that a forthcoming general election is a factor.
	I urge hon. Members to oppose the allowance.

Jack Straw: The debate has been interesting, notwithstanding the comments of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that it is fine to vote one way and then take the money regardless. Some of us will monitor that with interest. I understand his point, but I believe that there will be a slightly larger take-up if the motion is approved than the numbers going through the Lobby will suggest.

Matthew Taylor: That does not make it right.

Jack Straw: It shows that more hon. Members may think that it is right than are willing to put their heads above the parapet. If they genuinely believed that it was a bad idea, they would not take the allowance. I believe that it is right and I would not have introduced it if I did not.
	Much time has been spent on the issue that the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) raised—
	 It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker  put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 283, Noes 188.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	(1) That this House approves the First Report of the Members Estimate Committee 2006-07 (HC 319) on a Communications Allowance, and is of the opinion that provision should be made with effect from 1st April 2007 for a Communications Allowance in accordance with paragraphs (2)—(4) below.
	(2) The allowance shall be for the purpose of assisting Members with expenditure incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily in communicating with the public on parliamentary business, and the scope of the allowance shall be as set out in the First Report of the Members Estimate Committee.
	(3) The allowance shall be at a rate of £10,000 per year for each Member, uprated annually in line with any increase in the Retail Price Index.
	(4) The detailed rules and guidance for the Allowance shall be determined and reviewed from time to time by the Members Estimate Committee.

NOTICES OF QUESTIONS ETC. DURING SEPTEMBER

Resolved,
	That the following Standing Order (Notices of Questions etc. during September) be made—
	(1) Notices of questions for written answer on a named day by a Minister of the Crown may be given on three appointed tabling days, for answer on three appointed answering days, between 2nd and 21st September.
	(2) A motion to appoint tabling days and answering days under paragraph (1) may be made by a Minister of the Crown; and the question on such a motion shall be put forthwith and may be decided, though opposed, after the moment of interruption.
	(3) Notices of questions for named day answer on one of the appointed answering days, received by the Table Office on any day after the rising of the House for the summer adjournment, shall be treated as if given on—
	(a) that day, if they are received on an appointed tabling day; or
	(b) the next appointed tabling day, if they are received on any other day, and a Member may not give notice of more than five such questions in respect of each appointed tabling day.
	(4) Notwithstanding sub-paragraph (4)(a) of Standing Order No. 22 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments), no notice of a question may be given under this order for a day earlier than five days (excluding Saturday and Sunday) after the day on which the notice is given.
	(5) A Minister of the Crown, being a Member of the House, may give notice on an appointed tabling day of his intention to make a ministerial statement in written form on an appointed answering day.
	(6) In the event of a recall of the House under Standing Order No. 13 (Earlier meeting of the House in certain circumstances), the Speaker may publish a memorandum amending the arrangements made under this order.— [ Mr.  Straw.]

SELECT COMMITTEES (REPORTS)

Resolved,
	That the following amendment be made to Standing Order No. 134 (Select Committees (Reports)):
	Line 9, leave out 'forty-eight' and insert 'seventy-two'.—  [ Mr.  Straw.]

PARLIAMENTARY CONTRIBUTORY PENSION FUND

Resolved,
	That Sir Graham Bright be appointed as a Managing Trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund in pursuance of section 1 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987.— [ Mr.  Straw.]

Betting, Gaming and Lotteries

Tessa Jowell: I beg to move,
	That the draft Gambling (Geographical Distribution of Casino Premises Licences) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.
	On 30 January, the casino advisory panel, following extensive public engagement, published its recommendations relating to the 17 local authorities that should be permitted to issue the one regional, eight large and eight small casino licences. The panel's recommendations on the large and small licences have, I believe, gained general acceptance within the House and outside. However, the panel's conclusion on the location of the regional casino has proved controversial. The source of that controversy is the strength of feeling from two quarters.
	First, there are those who hold a moral objection to gambling—a view that I entirely respect and is held by many on both sides of the House and beyond. It is in recognition of the many downsides of gambling that we constructed in the Gambling Act 2005 one of the most rigorous regulatory and protective regimes in the world. Secondly, there are those, led with great passion and effectiveness by my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), who believe that the regional casino should be located in Blackpool. I understand that view, too. Their constituents can be in no doubt about the power of their advocacy on behalf of the people they represent.

Joan Humble: My right hon. Friend well knows the strength of feeling in Blackpool, and it links the two issues that she mentioned. Minimising gambling was part of Blackpool's bid as a resort casino and yet Professor Crow admitted to the Merits Committee in the House of Lords that he did not take that into account. He made it virtually impossible to award the regional casino to a resort such as Blackpool. Perhaps the Secretary of State will comment on that.

Tessa Jowell: Yes. I have had a discussion with my hon. Friend about precisely this point. Having carefully studied the Merits Committee's conclusions, I have to say that I do not agree with them on this point. She will know that the overriding objective of the Gambling Act, which has within it the provision for the 17 new casino licences, is public protection, which involves keeping gambling crime free and ensuring that gambling is fair. In interrogating all the applicant local authorities, Professor Crow sought to ensure that each could conduct a test of social impact.

Gordon Marsden: I accept the distinction that my right hon. Friend makes. However, does she not think it rather perverse when one part of the process is set up to produce a particular emphasis, while another part is set up to produce a different one? Does she not think that that inevitably undercuts one of the key principles of the Gambling Act, which was preventing harm and the expansion of problem gambling?

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend has made that point several times. Let me make it clear that Professor Crow was asked to consider the applicant local authorities in the context of three tests on social impact, the capacity for regeneration and the willingness of the local authority to license. Hon. Members will be aware that we made specific provision in the Gambling Act for local authorities that did not wish to have any casinos—this is rather at variance with the belief that casinos are being foisted on an unwilling public who do not want them—to apply a blanket ban. During the process, several local authorities opted to take that course.
	My hon. Friend has given this matter an enormous amount of thought on behalf of his constituents. The matter before the House and Ministers is one of judgment, given Professor Crow's report, the report of the Merits Committee and the objectives of the legislation. However, he should be in absolutely no doubt that the overriding concern of Ministers when reaching conclusions is the capacity of authorities to conduct a proper test of social impact and thus express the public protection objectives of the Act.

Ben Wallace: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Tessa Jowell: This is a short debate and many hon. Members wish to speak. In fairness to the House, I will take a limited number of interventions, but I wish to set out the arguments as quickly as I can so that they can make their contributions.
	As I have said, many local authorities wanted to explore the possible benefits of regeneration from casinos. When Professor Crow's panel invited bids for new casinos, 27 local authorities put themselves forward for the single regional casino licence. A total of 68 authorities put themselves forward as candidates for the 17 new licences. Our policy allows for a limited number of new casinos because of our precautionary approach to gambling. Those 17 developments should essentially act as pilots—a series of test beds to judge the impact of these new casinos in the context of the public-protection measures in the Gambling Act and the three criteria I have set out.
	We made it clear that we would ask an independent panel to make recommendations to Ministers, rather than have Ministers originating recommendations. Until, to everyone's surprise, the panel recommended Manchester, not Blackpool, as the authority for the regional casino, there was broad consensus across the House on the approach. In the time since the policy was established and during the long process of developing the legislation, I do not think that any significant disagreement was expressed.

Nigel Evans: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Tessa Jowell: I am going to make some progress.
	We approached the matter in such a way because we wanted to be sure that as we were testing the new approach, the decision was based on fact and evidence. That is why I have not simply overturned the panel's recommendation and inserted Blackpool instead of Manchester. It would fly in the face of the evidence to do so, and such an approach would have been grossly unfair to every other local authority that took part in a published and agreed process in good faith. That is the principal reason I am presenting the order in such a form today.
	Let me go through some of the other reasons behind the recommendations. Our intention is to evaluate the impact of this pilot before taking any decisions about the future number and location of any new casinos. That precautionary approach has two immediate consequences. The first is the composition of the order: the locations of the 17 new casinos have been chosen to give a mix of locations to measure impact accurately. Secondly, it means that there can be no new casino licences for at least the lifetime of this Parliament, until the clear assessment, based on rigorous evidence, is carried out.
	I shall now turn to the other issues that have exercised hon. Members. There have been calls for the order to be split, with a separate order for the regional casino. The Government have resisted those calls, because—as I have set out—the package of 17 new casinos forms a package. If I had split the order from the outset, I have no doubt that the accusation would be that the Government were manipulating Parliament into substituting another area in order to pursue political or other motives. I say that because until the panel's report was published on 30 January and the recommendations took everyone by surprise, we had daily reports about how the Government were nobbling various casino operators to ensure that the regional casino was sited at the dome. The process demonstrated the integrity of the panel's approach.

Nigel Evans: The Secretary of State of State has said that the package is being presented to us today because it is a package, but that is a self-fulfilling argument. Surely the best approach would be for the controversial decision to be put separately from those that are not controversial in the slightest. People would then at least have an opportunity to have their say on the controversial one, which—as she says—came as a shock to everyone. On the issue of regeneration alone, Blackpool should have got it.

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman and I had full exchanges on precisely that point at the Select Committee, where I made clear, beyond any doubt, the approach I would take. I have sought throughout the process of this controversial legislation to be clear and consistent at each stage. As I have explained to the House, I have sought to do the same on this decision.
	Much has been made of the Merits Committee report in the other place, which expressed reservations on two grounds—on how the panel interpreted its remit and on the issue of destination casinos. Both points have been raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, South and for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood. I have placed on the record and in response to the Committee my view that its concerns were misplaced.
	The primary consideration that we set for the casino advisory panel in making its assessment was to identify locations that would provide the best possible test of social impact. We did not ask the panel to identify a location that would reduce problem gambling as such, because our wider policy is the legislation itself, and it is the responsibility of the Gambling Commission to implement the most rigorous regulation to ensure that problem gambling is anticipated, acted on and contained.
	The Merits Committee also reflected a claim made by some that it is perverse to locate the regional casino in deprived, residential east Manchester. East Manchester is deprived. On the basis of official figures, it actually ranks as more deprived than Blackpool. One of the panel's considerations was to identify areas in need of regeneration, so it is not surprising that some of the candidate areas are very deprived. The panel's job, however, was to recommend a local authority area rather than a specific site, and it is possible to locate a regional casino in east Manchester without putting it in the very poorest residential area. After all, that will be what the local planning system is for. The same would apply to Blackpool or anywhere else. Blackpool's own bid placed the casino in the town centre, next to what I understand is judged to be a deprived ward.
	Let me move on to the questions that have been raised about destination casinos. The argument is that the panel has failed because it did not recommend a seaside resort to host the regional casino and has ignored the Joint Scrutiny Committee's recommendations. That is to misunderstand the concept of a destination resort. Manchester is in its own right a significant tourist destination. Apart from 2002, when it came fourth, in each of the years between 2001 and 2005—the figures bear this out—Manchester was the third most important overseas tourist destination in the UK, behind London and Edinburgh.
	Such a view also fails to reflect the Joint Committee's intentions. The Committee expected regional casinos to be large-scale entertainment complexes offering gambling alongside a wide range of non-gambling facilities. Anyone who has been to Manchester in the past 10 years can see that the city is at least as compatible with the concept of a leisure destination casino as anywhere else.  [ Interruption. ]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We will not have sedentary comments.

Tessa Jowell: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	On the evidence, the panel concluded that Manchester offered a
	"good test of social impact"
	for a regional casino. That was the judgment of some of the most eminent planning experts in the country, and that is why I have put forward Manchester in the order that we are debating.
	I know that whatever the outcome of today's debate, and the debate taking place in another place, hon. Members will continue to fight Blackpool's corner, and rightly so. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, South and for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood and other hon. Members will welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has today announced—a fully fledged regeneration taskforce to review the totality of economic, social and environmental development plans in the Blackpool area and to make recommendations on the way forward. That is a very constructive and practical response; it is a response to the persistent advocacy of my hon. Friends, and a proper response for this Government to make.
	Looking to the future, the Government intend to accept the amendment tabled in another place by my noble Friend Baroness Golding, calling for the creation of a fresh Joint Committee of both Houses to look at the casino advisory panel to see what lessons can be learned— [Interruption.] Hon. Members might like to wait so that they can understand the nature of the proposition. However, in addition to giving Members of both Houses an opportunity retrospectively to examine the panel process, while recognising that the creation of the Joint Committee and its terms of reference are a matter for the House authorities, let me state now that the Government would like the remit of any Joint Committee to be forward looking and not just retrospective.
	I have been very clear with the House, and I repeat now that there will be no more new casinos in the current Parliament, because the results of the social impact studies of the current 17 pilot casinos and of the next prevalence study will not be available until 2010. Proposals for more new casinos will therefore not be initiated by this Government. As I have said before—I reiterate it today—the impetus for such proposals would have to come from Parliament.

Hugo Swire: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunity to address the House.
	At the moment, there is no consensus on allowing any more new casinos, and there may never be such a consensus, but it is only right that the Joint Committee to which I referred should be allowed to examine the criteria and the conditions that could govern any possible future decision.
	If the Joint Committee decided that a future Parliament might allow another regional casino, and if it recommended a specific location, I doubt that many hon. Members would be surprised if the place recommended was Blackpool. I hope that the Joint Committee will produce its first report within six months. I can assure the House that, with the agreement of my right hon. Friends the Chief Whips in both Houses, the Government would then make time available in both Chambers for any report from the Joint Committee to be debated. I know that that does not give the supporters of Blackpool an immediate gain or the reassurance that they wish for, but they will continue to have every opportunity to make their case in Parliament, and to work with the regeneration taskforce, which will engage in its work shortly after today.
	The House must decide today whether it wants to accept, and support the consequences of, a policy that it voted for in 2005, and that the Opposition accepted at that time, and even welcomed. The policy recognised that in the new world, millions of people want to gamble and have increasing opportunities to do so, but that the role of government is to ensure a high and rigorous level of protection. I remind the House of the many thousands of new jobs and the millions of pounds of investment that may be put at risk across the country if the order is not approved. Our policy recognises the inalienable role of the Government in protecting the public, and specifically the vulnerable and children, but it also responds to calls from local authorities to bring forward a limited number of casinos for the regeneration and leisure investment that they will bring.
	On the debate that will follow my speech, when hon. Members consider how to vote tonight and think about voting with the Opposition, I want them to ask themselves two questions. First, are they really prepared to be associated with an Opposition who are so unprincipled and inconsistent? Who said:
	"I add my congratulations to Manchester on its success in securing the proposed regional casino."—[ Official Report, 30 January 2007; Vol. 456, c. 89.]?
	It was the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire). The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), who seems to have disappeared, said that he was delighted that Manchester won the competition. Secondly, I would ask Members whether they really are prepared to throw away the chance of seeing regeneration benefits for 17 local authorities across the country. I hope that, having considered those two questions, they will join me in commending the order to the House.

Hugo Swire: The first word that springs to mind is "astonishment". It must be almost unprecedented for a Secretary of State to come to the House and admit that there has been a climbdown in the other place, having given the Opposition absolutely no prior notification of what she intends to do in the debate. We learned that she wrote to a number of her party's Back Benchers to try to buy them off, but did not share with us the critical change in policy that she just articulated. It is absolutely astonishing.

Tony Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hugo Swire: Not yet.
	The Secretary of State needs to clarify matters at the outset of the debate; that is absolutely crucial to the debate. It is crucial, too, I suspect, to the way in which many people will vote at the end of what the Order Paper says is a debate, although she is not encouraging debate because she did not allow people to intervene on her.

Tony Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hugo Swire: No, I will take my lead from the Secretary of State. If the hon. Gentleman will just allow me to complete a paragraph, I will give way to him in due course.
	Will the right hon. Lady say whether the Joint Scrutiny Committee can scrutinise the decision that we have been asked to support? If, given the remit that she outlined, the Committee concludes that it was a mistake, or that there was something wrong with the process of awarding the licence to Manchester and that perhaps it should go elsewhere, will its recommendations carry any weight at all? Can the Committee recommend the withdrawal of the licence from Manchester if we vote for the order this evening? Will she confirm that she will not issue the Manchester licence unless and until the Joint Scrutiny Committee agrees to it? If she cannot do that, the Committee, as she outlined it, is nothing more than an exercise to get her out of a hole, and it will not do any of the things that we would expect such a Committee to do.
	The Secretary of State is right to say that there has been much recent discussion about those casinos, and about gambling in general—and not just by Members of Parliament. In the past week alone, we have heard the strong reservations of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who warned of the impact on
	"the youngest, the poorest and the most vulnerable".
	Those are the very people whom the Government's Gambling Act 2005 is supposed to protect.
	The Secretary of State was understandably brief at the outset of her statement, but it is important to remind the House of why we are here today. My party agreed, largely thanks to the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), to a pilot scheme of one regional casino, and eight large and eight small casinos. We reached that position after the right hon. Lady initially proposed an unlimited number of regional casinos. Our top priority throughout the passage of the Act, and ever since, has been to minimise problem gambling, and we have been entirely consistent in that aim.
	The Government always say that the Act is about protecting the vulnerable, yet they are pushing the order through without adequate scrutiny of the risks of problem gambling associated with siting the regional casino in a city centre. The casino advisory panel has made a recommendation to Parliament, which Parliament is free to accept or reject after debate. That is why we are here.

Anthony D Wright: The hon. Gentleman said that he supported one regional casino and no more. Why, then, in 2005, did his party table an amendment, which he voted to support, for four regional casinos, not one?

Hugo Swire: If we had more time, perhaps we could go back over the legislation.  [ Interruption. ] Hon. Members should allow me to speak; at least I have accepted an intervention. The hon. Gentleman would do well to remember that initially his Government wanted an unlimited number of regional casinos with unlimited jackpots. It was because of the official Opposition, and because of support from other Opposition parties, that we managed to get it down to one pilot regional casino, which we are discussing this afternoon. We are here to reconsider the panel's recommendation, not simply to rubber-stamp it. If the order is passed today, we will finalise at a stroke the single biggest change to gambling law in the UK, which is why it is important that Parliament be given adequate opportunity to scrutinise the recommendation of the casino advisory panel before the final decision is made.

Tony Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hugo Swire: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have quite a long speech to make. He can intervene, but if he will allow me to make progress, he may find that I will answer some of his questions.
	The right hon. Lady claims that the future of all 17 casinos is at risk if the order is defeated this afternoon. That is clearly not the case. Let me remind the House that we need not be considering one order this afternoon. We offered the Secretary of State the opportunity to put forward one order covering the 16 large and small casinos, which we would support. She rejected that offer. Her approach remains "all or nothing", and it is designed solely to put pressure on her Back Benchers and to steamroller the decision through without proper scrutiny.
	Let me make it clear to the House that no Member who votes against the order today need worry that those 16 large and small casinos are under threat, regardless of the scare stories that the right hon. Lady is putting around. If she re-tabled the order with just the 16 locations, we would support it. We are voting against the order, but it is not a vote against the casino advisory panel or a vote against Manchester. It is a vote for further parliamentary scrutiny.
	I turn to the substance of the matter before us—whether the Opposition are willing to accept the casino advisory panel's recommendation to site the regional casino in Manchester. The right hon. Lady referred to the congratulations that my colleagues and I offered to Manchester and the 16 other locations in the hours after the advisory panel made its announcement. Those congratulations were genuine. We had no intrinsic opposition to Manchester or any other individual location, but given the surprise choice of Manchester—the right hon. Lady conceded that, even for her, it was a surprise choice, not least, I suspect, as it had risen from the bottom of the casino advisory panel's ranking table to the top—it is right for us to have used the time since then to look in greater detail at the report and to listen to the concerns that are now in the public domain.
	The right hon. Lady will also remember that in the same statement I said that we intended to
	"hold the Government to account on the many promises they have given to protect the most vulnerable and those most at risk from their legislation."
	That is the right approach, and it is exactly what we seek to do today.

Bob Spink: The House of Lords Statutory Instruments Committee found that the panel did not take proper account of or give a high priority to the impact of the casinos on the community and their harmful effect. Does my hon. Friend consider that a reasonable reason why the House should reject the CAP's recommendation?

Hugo Swire: That is a reasonable reason for the House to reject the order and for a proper Joint Scrutiny Committee to be reconvened in order to examine that and many other accusations and suggestions that are in the public domain.

Tony Lloyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is being nice—but only after a time. When he said to the House on 30 January,
	"I add my congratulations to Manchester . . . I and my party hope that that will bring the promised regeneration to that great city in the north-west"—[ Official Report, 30 January 2007; Vol. 456, c. 89-9.]
	was there any ambiguity in that statement? I can see none. With reference to his remarks this afternoon, can he tell me exactly what doubts have been cast on Manchester's ability to deal with both regeneration and problem gambling?

Hugo Swire: I am about to tell the hon. Gentleman all my doubts. If he had allowed me to proceed, our exchange might have been more interesting. I congratulated Manchester that day, as did my hon. Friends. The city won a competition. One hopes that the regenerative benefits will be as envisaged, although there are all kinds of reports, such as the Hall Aitkin report and another report from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which suggest that the regenerative benefits of the regional casinos are not all they are cracked up to be. If the hon. Gentleman read the exchange between the Chairman of the House of Lords Merits Committee and Sir Stephen Crow, he would see that there are serious doubts about the regenerative benefits of some of the regional casinos.

Joan Humble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hugo Swire: I must make some progress. I have given way far more—in fact, 100 per cent. more—than the Secretary of State.
	The Secretary of State has tried to turn this into an issue of party politics, yet she cannot deny that a clear coalition of concern has emerged in both Houses and across all parties in the weeks since the casino advisory panel published its report. Before the strong arm of the Government Whips swung into action, 83 of her Back-Bench colleagues signed an early-day motion questioning the panel's decision and calling for the Joint Committee that scrutinised the draft Gambling Bill to be reconstituted. That is the clearest evidence that there can be of the concern that exists on both sides of the House.
	Were that not enough to make the Secretary of State think again, last week the House of Lords Merits Committee raised some crucial questions. It stated that the order might
	"imperfectly achieve its policy objective".
	One of the three core objectives of the Gambling Act 2005 is
	"protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling".
	Yet the Committee found that the casino advisory panel's interpretation of its criteria
	"did not give high priority to the prevention of harmful effects to the community from gambling".
	It said that the panel
	"veered towards their terms of reference with their emphasis on the research testing of impacts rather than the minimisation of harm".
	The Joint Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who is in his place, concluded that regional casinos should be located in a resort destination rather than in a city centre where there is greater risk of "ambient", or casual, gambling from people living nearby.

Graham Stringer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hugo Swire: I must make some progress.
	Not only was that the view of the Committee, but it was backed by the study of international research which was commissioned by the casino advisory panel, but which for some reason
	"was not used in the Panel's selection process",
	according to the Merits Committee. The Secretary of State will remember that one of her former Ministers, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, formerly the Minister with responsibility for gambling, told the Joint Committee:
	"we have taken the view that in what I call destination gambling—in other words where you have to make a positive decision to go into a location where gambling takes place"—

Graham Stringer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is saying that the casino is to be in Manchester city centre, but it is not. Can he please be accurate in his description?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced Member of this House, knows that that is not a point of order for the Chair.

Hugo Swire: Not only that, but it is not a very good point, because I happen to know that although the casino is destined to go to east Manchester, under the legislation it is within Manchester's rights to relocate it anywhere within the area, as the Minister for Sport confirmed to the Merits Committee. I can happily refer hon. Members to the relevant  Hansard.
	Lord McIntosh told the Joint Committee:
	"we have taken the view that in what I call destination gambling—in other words where you have to make a positive decision to go into a location where gambling takes place, rather than casual gambling which is thrust at you at the street corner—there is likely to be less increase in problem gambling than there is from casual gambling."
	As Professor Peter Collins, an expert in gambling who is himself based in Salford, which is not in east Manchester, said:
	"convenience is the single greatest spur to increase problem gambling".
	Yet when Lord Filkin asked Professor Crow, the chairman of the casino advisory panel, to confirm whether
	"Their interpretation of their terms of reference made it virtually impossible for them to recommend that there should be a destination casino?",
	Professor Crow replied, "Yes."
	Are we not right in wanting to scrutinise further why such a diametrically opposed approach was taken by the casino advisory panel? Why is the Secretary of State content to push this order through without proper consideration of that fundamental discrepancy? Why are the Government so intent on forcing their Back Benchers to rubber-stamp this decision without allowing proper scrutiny?
	It is also not sufficient to say that the casino advisory panel simply followed its terms of reference. Is the Secretary of State content that, as the Merits Committee makes clear,
	"the panel had added some elements to the selection criteria, for example their own assumptions about relative profitability".
	Or is she happy that, according to the Committee, the panel's analysis of the ability of local authorities to manage the process
	"was not in the terms of reference"?
	What is clear is that many of the problems arose from the panel's interpretation of the terms of reference. I quote the Lords Committee again:
	"Adding maximisation of profit into the consideration...seemed to have a greater weight on the Panel's recommendations than minimisation of harm".
	Does not the Secretary of State find it amazing and worrying that maximisation of profit was such a priority for the panel, ahead of reducing social harm? Indeed, the casino advisory panel's report states explicitly:
	"Problem gambling is more of a town planning consideration than one for us".
	How does that square with the Secretary of State's claim that her legislation will protect the vulnerable?
	The Secretary of State's explanations of the casino advisory panel's terms of reference are simply not sufficient. We have no confidence that the rationale of the casino advisory panel was the same rationale as this House had in mind when it agreed to a pilot scheme of new casinos— [Interruption.] It is not enough for the Secretary of State and Ministers to say that the Gambling Commission will tackle problem gambling. This pilot must not be some sort of social experiment. The new legislation clearly states that it should be about minimising harm, which must include the decision about where to locate the regional casino.
	In the light of all the expert advice gathered by the Lords Committee and its conclusions, we believe that the panel's recommendation on the regional casinos should be subject to further scrutiny by a properly reconstituted Committee of both Houses. That is necessary to ensure that Parliament is confident that the final decision is the right one, and that the importance of minimising problem gambling is fully taken into account.
	The Secretary of State's argument that this is putting 7,000 jobs at risk, which I have seen rehearsed in some of today's and yesterday's newspapers, simply does not hold water. We are calling for a four to six-week delay while this recommendation is given proper scrutiny. Given that the casino will not be built for three years or so, and that the legislation has in any case been on the cards since 2001, why would a delay of six weeks make any material difference whatever? Is it because, as many believe—and in line with her concession in the other place—the Secretary of State has already realised that the whole process was flawed?
	Yes, we supported the establishment of an independent panel to advise the Secretary of State on the locations of the new casinos, but the right hon. Lady should not abdicate her responsibility and hide behind what is ultimately advice—I repeat, advice—without giving the recommendations adequate parliamentary scrutiny. So far, her only concession has been to extend the length of this debate to three hours and to offer up a Committee that, on closer inspection, is likely to be powerless. That is simply not good enough.

Ben Wallace: On 28 February, I received a letter from the Secretary of State saying that there was no need to have any type of panel reconvened, or otherwise to examine the decision. Does my hon. Friend agree that we now seeing a U-turn when she stands before the House and says that we can have one?

Hugo Swire: I think that there have been more U-turns than a driving instructor encounters in a lifetime. It is certainly extraordinary to try to reconcile that statement with what we have heard today. My hon. Friend would do well to examine what the Secretary of State has actually said about this reconstituted Committee. I think that it is effectively a dog without teeth, but we will come on to that in a minute.
	Does the Secretary of State recognise that she could have saved her legislation in its entirety by splitting the order, as we and many others have asked her to do, so that the 16 large and small locations could be voted on while the regional casino recommendation was examined by a proper reconstituted Joint Scrutiny Committee? The Government are asking us today to make a leap of faith based on the recommendations of the casino advisory panel, but the Secretary of State's attack on the Opposition would have carried more weight if the Government's own stance had been clearer. We are voting this afternoon on the biggest change to gambling law in memory, yet only a week ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was imposing a new 50 per cent. tax rate on these casinos, because, we are told, of his personal distaste for gambling.
	The Chancellor—or should I say the Prime Minister in waiting?—has apparently ruled out any increase in regional casinos under his premiership. At the same time, the Deputy Prime Minister, who, as we all know, takes an active personal interest in those wanting to build regional casinos, has been telling anyone who will listen—I understand that there are still one or two such people—that Blackpool should have been chosen. If the Secretary of State does not have the support of her own Cabinet colleagues, how can she expect to have the support of Parliament? Why is she so determined to charge ahead despite all these objections?
	In a desperate last-minute attempt to buy off those who are set to vote against her this afternoon, the Secretary of State has suggested that she will accept the amendment tabled in the other place by Baroness Golding. I urge Members to get a copy of that amendment, which clearly states that it is
	"desirable that Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the Commons as a Joint Committee to consider the Panel's report in detail before any decision is arrived at with regard to the issuing of casino premises licences."
	Will the Secretary of State confirm, as I asked her to do at the outset, that not a single licence will be issued until the reconvened Joint Scrutiny Committee has sat and judged whether the casino should be in Manchester or somewhere else? If the Secretary of State is using the reconvened Joint Scrutiny Committee only as camouflage, or as a device to get her out of the hole that she finds herself in, it simply will not wash on either side of the House.
	The Secretary of State's slightly chaotic, eleventh-hour approach typifies her attitude towards gambling. She dismisses with equal scorn the critical, the questioning, the concerned and the cautious. This afternoon we are simply asking, "What's the rush?" She has already conceded defeat in the other place. It is because she is still refusing to grant the measures additional proper parliamentary scrutiny that we shall still vote against the order today. That is not a vote against Manchester, or against any of the other proposed locations. It is a vote for caution and for further scrutiny, so that Parliament can assure itself that the final decision is the right one, not only for the Government and for this beleaguered Secretary of State, but for the community in which the casino will be placed.

Tony Lloyd: I say to the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) that if it looks like opportunism and smells like opportunism, it almost certainly is opportunism. I also say to him and to the Liberal Democrats that a vote against the order will be interpreted as a vote against Manchester, and it is important that we establish that. Those Opposition Members who intend to vote against the order must recognise that there can be no other interpretation of their action, which is being taken for reasons not of principle but of opportunism. As such, it can only be interpreted as a vote against the city of Manchester.

Ben Wallace: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that we could vote against the order today, the panel could be reconvened and the evidence could be tested and examined in detail, and if the panel came back and recommended Manchester, Liberal Democrats or anyone else in the House would no doubt support that panel's finding? This is not a vote against Manchester.

Tony Lloyd: I am confident that the hon. Gentleman will join others in voting for Manchester at some stage but not, unfortunately, when it matters tonight. If Parliament passes the order tonight, the expectations for regeneration in my constituency, where the casino will be located, will be met.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) tried to intervene on the hon. Member for East Devon to point out his misunderstanding of Manchester. I invite him to visit my constituency so that I can disabuse him of the view that it is a city centre location. It simply is not.
	We need to disabuse the House of the myth that Manchester somehow sneaked through on the question of regeneration. It is sad for me to record that my city and my constituency are still among the poorest parts of the country. Unemployment in my constituency is the fifth highest in Britain. Child poverty in my constituency is the highest in Britain. According to the Government's index of deprivation, which takes account of a basket of factors, from housing to education to health, Manchester is still the third most deprived local authority. Every ward bar one in my constituency is massively more deprived—I do not use this against Blackpool—than any ward in Blackpool, with one exception. That is the level of deprivation in modern Manchester.
	Opposition Members—and one or two of my hon. Friends—who were fooled by the illusion of the glitzy city centre into thinking that the regeneration of Manchester is somehow finished, fail to recognise the reality of the poverty and the need for regeneration in that city.

Phyllis Starkey: If, as appears to be the wish of the Conservative party, the order is not passed, and the panel's consideration of Manchester and Blackpool is re-examined, there is no reason for the debate not to be reopened on all the other disappointed candidates for the regional, large and small casinos. Clearly, that is a concern to my constituents and the council in Milton Keynes, who are pleased that they have been successful, and would not want that decision reopened.

Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend raises a real issue. It is almost beyond belief that other disappointed local authorities would not seek judicial review to alter the balance of a decision on the range of regional, large and small casinos.
	The casino advisory panel recognised that Manchester has the advantage, despite the hon. Member for East Devon's attempt to rubbish it, of an enviable reputation for being able to use regeneration moneys effectively and efficiently. We do have that good reputation. I repeat to the House, however, that Manchester still has enormous need. Opposition Members should consider that Manchester is still suffering from the 100,000 manufacturing jobs that it lost when the Thatcher Government were in power and did so much damage. Recently, Barclaycard has decided to move 600 jobs away from Manchester, and Ciba-Geigy has closed down a plant that has been there for 100 years, taking away another 400 jobs. Therefore, perhaps Opposition Members—who even now do not understand much about the economic geography of the north of England—will understand that a city such as Manchester constantly needs to replace the jobs that it loses. That is why we need these hospitality industry jobs. As the Secretary of State has told the House previously—this was met with guffaws—Manchester is the third most popular tourist venue for day visitors in the country. That might astonish Members, but it is a matter of basic fact.

Joan Humble: I do not dispute the poverty figures that my hon. Friend mentions for his constituency, but Manchester has one of the most thriving economies in the north-west—it is the fastest-growing in the north-west—and visitors to the city such as me like to enjoy the shopping opportunities there, while others like to enjoy the football.

Tony Lloyd: People come to the Manchester tourist destination for many reasons. Of course they come for the football and cricket—Manchester does both very well, and football better than anywhere else in the country. The city also does theatre and music very well, and nightclubs. Sports City has 5 million visitors every year, and they do not come for the shopping. My hon. Friend should be cautious about trying to rubbish Manchester's claim to be a serious tourist destination.

Ben Wallace: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take some advice from a fellow north-west MP, who knows the area's economic geography and who also lives there. I understand his genuine concern about the deprivation and poverty in the centre of Manchester, so will he join me in expressing deep concern that Professor Crow admitted in his evidence to the Lords Committee that those factors were not taken into account when the location of the casino was decided?

Tony Lloyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is wrong on most counts and on this one as well. His intervention allows me to say that Professor Crow wrote to Lord Filkin, saying:
	"The Panel is very concerned that your Committee"—
	the Lords Merits Committee—
	"...concludes that we did not give high priority to the minimisation of harmful effects to the community. This is just not so. At paragraph 12 of our Final Report we made it clear that social impact considerations, both positive and negative, were implicit in our...criteria...Not only did we accord much weight to this consideration, one Panel Member was appointed particularly for his expertise in matters of social impact".
	Professor Crow goes on to talk about the evidence taken from the Salvation Army, the Quakers, the Christian Institute, NHS primary trusts, faith groups and so on. He concluded:
	"It was as a result of hearing such evidence that we became very confident of the ability of agencies in Manchester, more than anywhere else"—
	and I emphasise that "more than anywhere else"—
	"to manage the minimisation of harm from gambling effectively."
	I hope that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) and others will accept that the allegation of the Merits Committee was simply wrong, that the casino advisory panel considered in detail the concept of harm minimisation and that it accorded Manchester very high marks in that regard.

Lynne Jones: I have visited the area in question on numerous occasions to go to Sports City and the velodrome, so I am familiar with it. However, I genuinely do not know how to vote tonight. I am concerned about the social impact of casinos and not very enamoured with the idea of huge regional casinos. Nor am I convinced of the regenerational capacity of such ventures compared with other investment possibilities in the area. What would my hon. Friend say to convince me to vote for the order?

Tony Lloyd: I suppose that it depends on the exact nature of my hon. Friend's difficulty. Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I have genuine respect for those who are opposed to gambling—full stop. That is a perfectly legitimate and intelligible position, but what is not intelligible is to play politics about whether the casino should be located in Manchester, Yarmouth, Milton Keynes or somewhere else. That is not a reputable argument.
	However, we can argue about how we maximise regeneration. I believe that regeneration could be done very successfully in Manchester, which has a good record for making it work. We can also argue about how harm minimisation could be carried out, and Manchester—uniquely among those areas that bid for the casino—put forward a comprehensive plan in that regard.
	In any case, and irrespective of the decision reached this evening, Manchester city council accepts that problem gambling already exists in my city, as a result of the internet and all the other ways that people can access gambling in our society. The town hall's responsible gambling unit will carry on its work anyway, because we feel that we have a duty to take a responsible approach to the gambling that already goes on. Manchester's commitment to responsible gambling must underwrite the bids for regional casinos, and the whole approach to gambling in modern Britain.
	Gambling is better done in a casino regulated by law than in those that exist in hyperspace, which allow people to operate on credit and incur considerable debt without proper recourse. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) will at least acknowledge what Manchester tries to do about problem gambling and to ensure that the 2,700 jobs we believe that we can create through the casino turn into more by using it as a lever for the hospitality industry. Despite hollow laughter from Conservative Members, that is an important part of the Manchester economy.
	It is important to hold a parliamentary debate on the matter. There is little opposition in Manchester, other than from the occasional opportunistic politician, to siting the casino in the city. The north-east Manchester Advertiser, the  Manchester Evening News and the local media have all run campaigns in favour of locating the regional casino there. We want the casino to be based there—the general public in my city are overwhelmingly in favour of it. That is an important endorsement. Frankly, that cannot be claimed by all those who promote different casino sites throughout the country. I do not criticise people for that; I accept that the subject is controversial in some areas. However, it is not controversial in the poorest part of the city of Manchester, which I represent.

Iain Duncan Smith: I respect the hon. Gentleman's point, but does he accept that when people are bombarded by those in authority almost guaranteeing that huge numbers of jobs and massive redevelopment of an area will flow from such a decision, they will vote for it? However, nowhere have those results been demonstrated. If, in two or three years, expectations have not been realised, will the hon. Gentleman come to the House to demand that the casino be closed down?

Tony Lloyd: Let me go this far with the right hon. Gentleman: it is important to use the Manchester experiment as a template for the rest of the country. The Government have made that commitment. If we discover that the impact is as negative as he suggests, we would not want casinos in Blackpool, Manchester, Milton Keynes or anywhere. However, I emphasise that gambling and its problems exist in our society and that it is better for them to be regulated. I guarantee that the regional casino in Manchester will be examined more often and more closely than any casino that currently exists. We will know in a short time whether we can make the casino work for regeneration and job creation and whether we can minimise the impact of problem gambling in a way that should reassure those who argue, however speciously, that they support an experiment and nothing more.
	I hope that the plea to recognise the needs of a city such as Manchester will not, once again, fall on deaf ears on the Opposition Benches. If it does, that would be interpreted only as a vote against Manchester.

Don Foster: Like the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) and his colleagues, we will vote against the order. I want to make it clear, especially to the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd), that our decision has nothing to do with a specific casino bid or a particular location. I hope that he will acknowledge that my speech demonstrates that.
	Also like the hon. Member for East Devon, I am disappointed that the Secretary of State did not make available to me or the hon. Gentleman the contents of the letter that she wrote to hon. Members who represent Blackpool. I have now had an opportunity to read it, but the Committee that she proposes to establish, through an amendment tabled in another place by Baroness Golding, will do nothing to tackle our anxieties. The letter describes the creation of a fresh Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the casino advisory panel and ascertain what lessons can be learned for the future. Clearly, such a Committee will have no impact and give no help to those of us who believe that we need to establish a Committee to examine the recommendations before a vote is taken on them.
	The Secretary of State knows that this is extremely controversial legislation. She said so herself in her speech. She has many times argued for a cautious approach. That is why I wrote to her on two separate occasions requesting that she reconvene the Joint Scrutiny Committee of both Houses of Parliament, which was ably chaired by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and gave us excellent advice, before we set off on the road that led to the Gambling Act 2005. We believe that it should be reconvened and that we should not go ahead with a vote on the CAP's recommendations without the Joint Committee's views on two specific issues. First, it should consider the impact on the CAP's recommendations of the recent and significant changes in gambling ecology in this country. Secondly, it should consider the concerns that have been expressed not least by the Merits Committee in another place about the remit given to the CAP and the way in which it met that remit. The Secretary of State's toothless Committee will offer none of those things.
	Since the CAP was established, there have been some significant changes in gambling in this country, which were referred to by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central. Surely those changes have to be considered alongside the recommendations of the panel. In particular, as he said, there has been a huge growth in internet gambling.
	It was a year ago that the Secretary of State herself expressed concern. She told the "Today" programme that there had been
	"an explosion in online gambling...an explosion over which we have very little control".
	Her Department and the Gambling Commission have both admitted that the online gambling market has more than doubled in the past five years and that there are now 1 million online gamblers in this country. It is surely worrying that when I asked the Minister of Sport, in a parliamentary question, what research he had commissioned into the relationship between internet gambling and problem gambling, he told me that he had commissioned no such research.
	It is equally worrying that the Government's efforts to bring online gambling companies onshore and under our proposed regulatory regime, which we spent so much time in Committee discussing, have so far completely failed. Frankly, the Chancellor's recent Budget means there is now no chance of success. The online operators have made it clear that they will not seek a UK licence because of the 15 per cent. remote gaming duty outlined in the Budget. It is no wonder that the chief executive of the Remote Gambling Association, Mr. Clive Hawkswood, said that the Government
	"has missed a real opportunity to lead the way in terms of international regulatory standards".
	To make matters worse, while everyone knows that problem gambling is on the rise, efforts to help those who suffer from gambling addictions remain woefully inadequate. Although, belatedly, the gambling industry has now contributed £3 million voluntarily to support the work of the excellent Responsibility in Gambling Trust and has promised more, we are still way behind other countries. We spend approximately £10 per head on problem gambling support, but it is significantly less than the amount spent in New Zealand, Canada and Australia, where it is £44, £40 and £26 respectively per problem gambler. Failures to address problem gambling should be factored into our thinking about the panel's recommendations.
	We should also be considering the Government's complete failure to be clear about how many casinos we are likely to have at the end of the process. The Secretary of State said that there will be no more casinos until the next parliamentary Session, but in the Gambling Bill Committee it took many weeks even to get clear information about how many existing casinos we have—139 at the time, as it turned out. Then the Minister confidently stated:
	"we can say with certainty that there will be no more than 150 casinos."—[ Official Report, Standing Committee B, 11 January 2005; c. 718.]
	Clearly, he totally failed to take account of the possibility of more casinos opening under the existing gambling legislation. He knows that that is the case because, from the figures that he sent to me last night—for which I am extremely grateful—in the worst case scenario there will be 249 licensed casinos. Even if we take a more conservative estimate and assume that only half the licence applications are successful, the Minister's cap of 150 will be far exceeded.
	We also need to take account of the possible impact of the claim for judicial review being brought by the British Casino Association, which has so far not been mentioned. That association believes that grandfathering arrangements for existing casinos introduced by the Gambling Act are unfair and place existing casinos at a substantial competitive disadvantage to the proposed new casinos. If that judicial review goes ahead and is successful, it would significantly change the climate in which the new casino trial is due to take place.
	One final change in the gambling ecology that we should be considering also comes from the Chancellor's Budget. By imposing a new high 50 per cent. top rate of tax, the new super-casino's profit margins will be reduced and its ability to contribute to regeneration, wherever it is located—Manchester or anywhere else—will be diminished. Surely concerns about the explosion of internet gambling, the failure to provide adequate support for problem gamblers, the likely higher than expected number of casinos, the impact of a possible judicial review and the higher than expected super-casino tax are all matters that a reconvened Joint Scrutiny Committee would want to, and I believe should, consider.
	The second fundamental reason for my decision to vote against the order today is based on my concerns about the remit given to the CAP and the way that it has executed it. Frankly, the panel was dealt an unfair hand, and the process by which it came to its conclusions has led to a range of criticisms, not least, as we have heard, by the Merits Committee. In its report, the CAP declared that the central tenet of its assessment of the bids was its quest to find the best test of social impact. Last week, as we have heard, the Secretary of State wrote to Lord Filkin in response to the damning findings of the Merits Committee. In it she said:
	"the criteria by which the Panel would assess submissions were set out in the national policy statement".
	However, the Secretary of State must know that the best test of social impact was not included in the statement of national policy. In fact, the remit on which the panel based its decision changed significantly from the one outlined in the national policy statement—something that the House had the opportunity to debate—to the one outlined in the terms of reference issued much later by her and not subjected to parliamentary scrutiny. Despite placing the best test of social impact as the panel's guiding principle, the Government never defined it. The panel was left to determine it for itself. It is not surprising that it admitted that seeking the best test of social impact was "a peculiar problem". It certainly is. One of the UK's leading experts on gambling, Peter Collins, has vehemently argued that the very idea of finding a best test of social impact is an impossible task, not least because there are numerous interpretations of such an ambiguous term.
	What is more, the CAP concluded:
	"After considering all the evidence"—
	I hope that the hon. Member for Manchester, Central is listening—
	"no single regional casino proposal emerged as the self evident favourite in presenting the best test of social impact. All had one or another point in its favour".
	No one bid stood out for the panel in terms of testing social impact, and yet the panel continued to use it as their guiding principle. It seems odd that it spent so much time pursuing the elusive and undefined social impact, rather than considering the Government's other guiding principle of minimising the harmful effects of gambling, a principle that was supposed at least to be implicit in the panel's terms of reference. So it was not surprising that the Merits Committee said:
	"when the objectives were in tension, the Panel veered towards their terms of reference with their emphasis on the research testing of impacts rather than the minimisation of harm".
	What is more, the panel made its decision based upon testing the effects of the new regional casino assuming it to be a pilot, whereas it seems increasingly likely—if the Chancellor has his way—that there will only ever be one regional casino.
	There are many other concerns—for example, the British Casino Association highlights the panel's failure to consider the existing gambling landscape during its decision-making process. The association argues that
	"the location and proximity of existing casinos will dilute the likely impact of the new casinos and render any social impact test more complex and less certain".
	Many people find it somewhat bizarre that the casino advisory panel recommended the location of proposed new casinos in areas where in many cases there is already a large number of casinos—for instance, Manchester already plays host to 10 casinos and there are 19 existing casinos near 10 of the proposed new small and large casinos.

Iain Duncan Smith: I am not in favour of any of these things, but the hon. Gentleman touches on an important point about the number of existing casinos in Manchester. How much regeneration has there been around those casinos? How much has it contributed to the state of Manchester today?

Don Foster: I shall certainly give the matter some thought. Like the hon. Member for East Devon, I am well aware of the many reports that suggest that some of the regeneration benefits claimed may be somewhat bogus and may simply lead to a movement of staff from one institution to another in terms of the wider entertainment ecology of a location.
	Given that the panel put so much emphasis on social impact, it is certainly odd that the location of existing casinos did not seem significantly to inform its reasoning. As the Merits Committee heard, there have been many other criticisms: inconsistency, a relentless shifting of the goal posts by the panel, chaos in the appeals process and constant changes to the all-important examination in public sessions, which changed from one candidate to the next, with varying amounts of preparation time for the sessions and presentation time within them. Sadly, the Merits Committee was unable to explore the last issue fully as the transcripts of those sessions have not yet been published. If the Secretary of State agrees to reconvene the Select Committee, I hope that it can have access to them.
	Concerns have already been expressed about the regeneration aspects of the panel's work. The panel said that the job creation proposals used to assess the regeneration potential of the bids were for the most part
	"prepared at a time when there was a belief that there would be more than one regional casino".
	If that is the case, how could their estimates have been much help in assessing the bids for what will be a single super-casino? In relation to the choice of Manchester, what assurances do we have that the council will stick to east Manchester? That point was raised by the hon. Member for East Devon. After all, the Secretary of State's letter, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, makes it clear that the council has the choice
	"to issue the licence to any site within the authority area".

Tony Lloyd: Manchester is bound by the legislation; it was not Manchester's choice. The leader and the chief executive of the city council made it absolutely clear that they could only reconsider the Eastlands site on the basis of a bid that demonstrably proved that it would do everything covered by the present bid but better, so that there would be more jobs, more regeneration and a better framework for social responsibility. The council is bound to accept bids elsewhere—it cannot do otherwise—but Eastlands is where Manchester wants the casino located.

Don Foster: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is not entirely correct. Although I accept the integrity of the chief executive and members of the council, and would never call it into question, I hope that he will accept that the letter was specific—Manchester could choose any location in the city. He also knows that under the requirements of the legislation there must be a competition for the new casino. During that competition, it would be perfectly possible for other areas to make claims about regeneration and the prevention of social harm, so he cannot say with such certainty that the casino is bound to be in an east Manchester location. The CAP made it clear when it said:
	"It would not be easy to trace the city-wide social impact of the proposal...this would be less true, however, of East Manchester, where it would be relatively easy to adduce impacts."
	So, the casino advisory panel was clear that it meant east Manchester, but we have no assurances that that is where the super-casino will end up.
	Like many Members of the House, I welcome the Joint Scrutiny Committee's recommendation that favoured destination casinos. I had hoped that those views would have been taken into account by the panel in its remit and final decisions. During the passage of the Bill, I asked the Minister for Sport whether he would
	"tell the Committee whether the concept of destination will inform the location of the regional casinos".—[ Official Report, Standing Committee B, 16 December 2004; c. 672.]
	He replied: "The answer is yes." Despite that answer, it did not. The leader of the panel told the Merits Committee that it was impossible for the panel to recommend a destination location, because the very notion of a destination, by definition, made it harder to test social impact. That shows yet again that one part of the remit usurped the other. Destination casinos had clearly been preferred by the Joint Committee and experts on problem gambling, but the panel had to rule them out. The dice were loaded before they were rolled.
	Even the Secretary of State seems confused in what she had told the House today and in her letter. The panel tells us that it discounted certain bids because they were destination locations, but in her letter to Lord Filkin, the Secretary of State now claims that the chosen location of the regional casino is a destination. There is clearly something awry with the Secretary of State's understanding of the meaning of a destination casino.
	We need to be cautious. The gambling ecology has changed dramatically since the panel was proposed. It is apparent that there are problems with the panel's remit, as laid down without parliamentary scrutiny in August 2005. Thanks not least to the Merits Committee, it is clear that there are problems with how the panel interpreted and carried out its remit. In short, there is confusion, chaos and contradiction. The Joint Scrutiny Committee should be reconvened to consider all these matters and to advise both Houses. If the Secretary of State cannot agree to that, we will vote against the order tonight.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. A number of right hon. and hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye. May I make a plea for brief speeches so that more Members can be successful?

Joan Humble: We cannot underestimate the shock, anger and disappointment in Blackpool when the casino advisory panel made its announcement. That anger has not dissipated since the announcement was made—just the opposite. The people of Blackpool are determined to fight for their future, and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and I are determined to fight within this Chamber for their future. On Monday, we accompanied the editor of our evening paper,  The Gazette, to bring down and present to No. 10 a petition signed by more than 11,500 people. That shows the strength of feeling.
	That strength of feeling has existed for a long time. Blackpoolers have been involved in this debate for seven years. This was our future. This was the new 21st century Blackpool. The people of Blackpool are wonderfully innovative. We put the tower up in the 19th century and developed the pleasure beach and lots of other attractions in the 20th century. Let us remember that what we are talking about is a huge entertainment complex including a conference centre, hotels, restaurants, theatres—everything. This was the big idea for the 21st century and I say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that we are not giving up on it—and we are certainly not giving up easily. We are going to argue the case until the end of this debate and beyond, as she well knows.
	I want to set the record straight about what we, as Blackpool MPs, have been asking for. My right hon. Friend said at the beginning of her address that it would have been wrong for her to present an order in which she had taken out "Manchester" and inserted "Blackpool". We have never asked for that. We asked for two orders so that the eight large and eight small casinos could be considered separately from the other casino. I say to colleagues in the Chamber whose constituencies have been allocated a large or a small casino, I want them to get them. It is not my fault that we are voting for the whole lot—I am in the position that I am in. I want Great Yarmouth to get its large casino, which I am sure will be hugely successful for the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright), and I do not want to vote down Manchester. I want the debate on the regional casino to be properly considered. I tabled my early-day motion, which was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South and Opposition Members representing neighbouring seats on the Fylde coast, because this affects not only Blackpool but all of us, given the regeneration potential of the super-casino. I have to say that it seems absurd to talk about a regional casino when there is to be only one. If the Secretary of State will forgive me, I will call it a super-casino, because that is what it is.
	I was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill that became the Gambling Act 2005. I can see no relationship between the casino advisory panel's report and what we debated in Committee. I must acknowledge the excellent work of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport on that Committee. When we debated the new casinos, we expressed concern about the proliferation of gambling and the problems that that might bring. However, we also discussed the regeneration potential of casinos. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House backed the Bill only because of its regeneration potential for disadvantaged communities. I will put it even more strongly: they backed the Bill only because a debate had started on the regeneration of our seaside resorts, which, as we all know, have suffered over the past 20 years due to changing patterns of holidaymaking.
	When we considered setting up the casino advisory panel during our consideration of the Bill, I supported it—I can say that quite honestly. However, I supported it in the context of the criteria we were considering: eight regional casinos, eight large casinos and eight small casinos. Things changed when the number of regional casinos went down to one. The panel should have been given further guidance on how to examine that new super-casino. It was not the panel's fault that it had to examine a range of criteria as part of its task. How could it determine what was Parliament's priority if the Government did not state what the priority was? When we debated the spread of casinos that would allow the impact of gambling to be properly assessed, we talked about having a spread of geographical locations for each of the categories. However, as soon as there was to be only one regional casino, we could not say, "We'll have part of it in a city, part in a resort and part in the middle of the countryside." Professor Crow had to try to make sense of the complex remit that he was given, so I cannot blame him for coming up with what he thought was the right answer. However, I can question whether, even within the rules that were set—by and large he set them for himself—he came up with the right answer.
	My early-day motion, which was supported by many colleagues, highlighted the fact that we needed a proper investigation before we made a decision on the single regional casino. That did not happen. I congratulate the Merits Committee in the other place because, in a short time, it has highlighted serious deficiencies in the casino advisory panel's report. If we in this House had had the opportunity to set up a Committee to consider the report, we could have highlighted other matters that could and should have been properly discussed. Nevertheless, I have to accept that that scrutiny was not performed, except by the Merits Committee, and we should address some of the points that it made.
	I make no apologies for repeating some of the points that other hon. Members have made, because they are very important. How did the panel address the need to minimise harm? It said that
	"maximising beneficial social impact...whilst minimising adverse social impact"
	was implicit in its criteria, but it should have been explicit, because that was the concern of so many hon. Members. If it had been explicit, the panel would have looked much closer at destination casinos.
	In various international analyses, destination casinos have been found to minimise social impact and maximise the benefits. When I go away on holiday, I take some money to spend, I spend it and I come home. If someone goes to Las Vegas to gamble, they will take spending money for that purpose. They will lose the money, but then they will come home and get on with their lives. All the evidence shows that the system would work best with a proper destination casino.
	Sadly, Professor Crow, in his evidence to the Merits Committee, said that it was virtually impossible for a resort to be allocated the regional casino because of the criteria within which he was operating. He ruled it out without ever properly considering our case.

Graham Stringer: In this debate I have tried to avoid any direct competition between Manchester and Blackpool, and I have a lot of sympathy for Blackpool. But does my hon. Friend accept that Professor Crow wrote to the Merits Committee explaining that the panel was fully aware of destination casinos? He gave the example of Dortmund, which was in the middle of a forest and had zero regeneration benefits. One of his criteria was to achieve as much regeneration as possible from the casino, and that could not be done at the extreme end—such as with the casino in Dortmund.

Joan Humble: My hon. Friend highlights how difficult it is for us, in the brief time available, to try to analyse in detail the casino advisory panel's report. He and I should not be comparing the respective bids of our constituencies; that should have been done in the context of a Committee set up for that purpose, which could have taken evidence and questioned Professor Crow about his assertions. The report was full of assertions, with language such as "I believe that" or "We feel that". On an issue as important as this, I want more than that. We need an assessment of evidence and as firm a conclusion as possible. We did not have that in the report.
	I disagreed with Professor Crow's conclusions, but he could have had better advice. The Merits Committee pointed out that he addressed the issue of profitability, which did not fall within his remit, although the Committee accepted that it was a matter of common sense for him to consider it. In Professor Crow's assessment of Blackpool, he says that the
	"regeneration benefits of the proposal before us are unproven".
	But that is true of all the bidders for the super-casino, because we have never seen one. No locality could prove its claims, but why did he say that about Blackpool? From my recollection, he did not say it of any of the others. He appears to have marked down Blackpool on all his subheadings, including methodology and location.
	The most condescending and indeed hurtful remark in Professor Crow's report, however, was about the economy of Blackpool. He said that he did not accept that our economy was declining, in spite of the overwhelming evidence given to him by the very large numbers of people who appeared in the public evidence session. He said that he believed that there would be
	"stabilisation at a lower level".
	He went on to say that
	"this may well include the management of contraction. If so, this situation should be resolutely faced by the authorities and local businesses alike without visions of external intervention to cure all ills."
	How dare he say that? What we were bidding for was absolutely the most appropriate external intervention in Blackpool. We have an economy that is built on leisure and tourism. Where else should there be a super-casino but by the seaside in Blackpool? Yet Professor Crow says that we should not look for external intervention, but that Manchester was already regenerated.

Nigel Evans: One of the odd things about this debate is that the vast majority of MPs have been to Manchester and to Blackpool, and they will have made their own assessments about regeneration in both places. What struck me about the criteria was that the Government set one set of criteria, but it seems that Professor Crow and his committee acted on a different set of criteria. Had Blackpool known about that separate set of criteria, perhaps the presentation would have been somewhat different or Professor Crow would indeed have started his research by saying "Blackpool needn't apply."

Joan Humble: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid point. What depressed me about the report was that on what we saw as the strong points of Blackpool's bid—it was a destination that people came to and then left—it was marked down. What nonsense. If we are trying to minimise problem gambling, we should celebrate that here we are pleading for a super-casino in a resort.
	Time is passing, Madam Deputy Speaker. Professor Crow did not allow Members of Parliament to speak in the public evidence sessions, and this is the only opportunity that I have to speak on this issue. Although I thank the Secretary of State for extending the time, it is not long enough. We were denied the opportunity in Blackpool by Professor Crow's decision, and we are now being denied the opportunity here because of the limited time.
	I shall make two further points. For Blackpool, this issue is the single catalyst for regeneration. Manchester is a glorious, thriving city. I acknowledge everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd)—he is my friend—says about his constituency, but I visit Manchester and I see all the new developments there. The excellent report on coastal towns published by the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, which all of us should read, features evidence presented from the north-west. Councillor John Joyce, the then chair of the North West regional assembly, and Keith Barnes, regional director of the Government office for the north-west, gave evidence. Councillor Joyce said that
	"we believe that now we have changed the North West Regional Assembly and gone into what I call a trinity with the Government North West and also the Regional Development Agency, we are now of the same mind to target those areas where we need to perform better."
	They went on to say in all the regional documents that Blackpool should have had the regional casino. Mr. Barnes, on behalf of the Government office for the north-west, said:
	"If this hearing were in Manchester or Liverpool, you would be able to see outside the number of cranes and transformation of those cities."
	As somebody who lives in the north-west, I see that development and celebrate it. However, we have in front of us a combined order that I did not want to see; no scrutiny of the casino advisory panel; a disregard for regional planning guidelines; and no opportunity for us to separate out the order or say to the large and small casinos that we back them and want them to proceed, but want a more detailed examination of a unique opportunity, through the super-casino, to regenerate whatever area it is in.
	That decision should have been taken with much more care and consideration, so with huge sadness I have to tell the Secretary of State that I cannot support the order in its current form. It is wrong to present it in that form, and I hope, even at this late stage, that she will withdraw it.

John Whittingdale: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), who made a powerful speech. She referred to the early-day motion that she tabled, which was in the Order Paper, and to the fact that a number of north-western Members on both sides of the House had signed it. I represent a coastal town, too, but I suspect that it is as far away from Blackpool as it is possible to be. However, I was happy to sign her early-day motion, because she presents a persuasive case.
	I begin by expressing some sympathy for the Secretary of State. Those of us who were involved in the debates during the passage of the Gambling Act 2005 always suspected that she was never that enthusiastic about the legislation. Certainly, the passage of the Bill was dogged by disaster throughout. Almost weekly, the Minister for Sport had to make an announcement of Government policy to the Standing Committee that was almost in direct contradiction to what he had argued the previous week. Then in the Bill's final stages in Parliament, the Secretary of State was forced to reduce the number of proposed regional casinos from eight to just one. That cannot have been easy for her, but I suspect that she must have sighed with relief when the Bill finally received Royal Assent. She could not have anticipated that not so long afterwards, she would be back in the House of Commons having to defend this order, and facing possible defeat.
	I currently chair the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, but during the passage of the Bill I was the shadow spokesman, and it is in that capacity that I want to speak. I want to reflect on some of the arguments that I presented at the time, and to say why I believe that the position outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) is entirely consistent with all the points that we made during the Bill's passage.
	There was much in the Bill that we always supported. We believed that there was a strong case for introducing a regime to regulate online gambling, and we supported the abolition of the 24-hour rule and the removal of the ban on advertising. The problem with the Bill was always regional casinos. They represented an entirely new form of gambling that had never before been seen in this country. They would introduce category A gaming machines, too; the proposal was, and is, that each of the regional casinos should have 1,250 of them. There was a real fear that that would lead to an increase in problem gambling. The Government's problems on that score began when they ignored the recommendation in the report of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who chaired the Joint Scrutiny Committee.
	Initially, the Government had proposed no real limit on the number of regional casinos, but my hon. Friend's Committee came up with a sensible scheme, under which we would use an economic mechanism that would limit the number. The Government did not accept that recommendation, but instead, halfway through the passage of the Bill, they had to come up with a cap of eight casinos, which flew in the face of what they had previously argued. It was never entirely clear to us why the number should be eight. It was even less clear why, just a few weeks later, they came back with further caps of eight on the number of large casinos, and on the number of new small casinos. Certainly, in the case of regional casinos, we felt that the figure was too large and should be reduced. In the end, we argued that there should be just one, and the Secretary of State was forced to accept that position.
	In arguing about where that one regional casino should be located, we were entirely happy to accept the Secretary of State's decision that the decision should be given to an advisory panel. However, we have always made it clear that we share the Joint Scrutiny Committee's view that the impact on problem gambling would be minimised if the location were a destination resort. We strongly supported the Committee's recommendation that the regional casino should not be located in close proximity to residential properties. At the time, we said that that should be the overriding consideration, and while we certainly were not in a position to say that it necessarily should go to Blackpool, we recognise the strength of the case that Blackpool made.
	The Secretary of State said that no one objected to the panel's terms of reference, which is correct. However, they were extremely brief:
	"The criteria against which the panel will assess these submissions were set out in the government's national policy statement on casinos...The primary consideration will be to ensure that locations provide the best possible test of social impact."
	As previous speakers have said, it was extremely unclear precisely what that meant, and the panel clearly had great difficulty interpreting what was meant by social impact. It was clear to us, however, that the national policy statement, which was issued when it was proposed that there should be eight regional casinos, rather than one, nevertheless set out at the very outset that the Government's first objective was to protect children and other vulnerable people from harm. It was not unreasonable to believe that that would be one of the guiding principles of the advisory panel's work.
	We were therefore astonished—at least, I was certainly astonished—when the Secretary of State announced a few weeks ago that the panel had decided that the regional casino should be located in Manchester, as that plainly was an area in close proximity to residential properties. As I said at the time, I was even more astonished to find that the panel's report stated that
	"problem gambling is more a town planning consideration rather than one for us".
	The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) has sought to argue that Professor Crow has since said that he did accord importance to social impact and problem gambling when making his decision. However, the panel plainly states that it did not consider that that was a matter for it. Its interpretation of the test of social impact appears to have been to look at the various applications and decide which one was most likely to lead to an increase in problem gambling, and choose it, because it would offer the best test, which is an entirely perverse interpretation of the way in which most people thought that it would undertake its task.
	When the Secretary of State wrote to Lord Filkin after the publication of the advisory panel's report, she stated that minimising harm from gambling was not "the primary consideration" that she set for the panel. That leads us to believe that the panel conducted its own inquiry in the light of its terms of reference, but that the Government set it terms of reference that excluded from consideration what we always believed to be the most important issue. On that basis, the panel's report is flawed, as the Government misled the panel about the issues and criteria that it should have used to make a judgment by excluding what we in the House had always considered to be the most important issue when determining the future location of any regional casino.
	It is on that basis that I continue to believe that the recommendation is flawed. My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon has argued that we do not have a problem with the recommendation for the locations of the eight large casinos, or, indeed, for the eight small casinos. Certainly, it would have been preferable had the Secretary of State separated the two issues and put before the House two orders, so that the 16 locations that are likely to benefit from large or small casinos could proceed without being delayed while the matter was re-examined.
	The location of a regional casino is extremely important. There is a real risk that if we get it wrong, that will lead to a significant increase in problem gambling, which is what we have always sought to avoid throughout the consideration of the legislation. If that risks exists, it is worth pausing, as my hon. Friend said, and referring the matter back to a Committee which can take account of the concern about problem gambling, rather than to the advisory panel, which seems to have excluded that issue from its consideration.
	For that reason, I hope the House will vote not against Manchester, as some have suggested, but in line with the recommendation in the House of Lords that the matter should be referred back to a Scrutiny Committee. Whereas in the House of Lords it appears that the Government's belated acceptance of Baroness Golding's amendment will change nothing, the proposal should be considered by a Scrutiny Committee, and the order should be laid and permission given only after that Committee has had a chance to report.

Jeff Ennis: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this important debate. Like every other speaker so far, I shall focus on the most controversial aspect of the order—the choice of Manchester before Blackpool in the Crow report. I was one of the serving members of the pre-legislative Joint Scrutiny Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). I found that a very positive experience. We should look to more pre-legislative Committees to pave a smooth way for Bills through the House. The Government should take heed of that.
	The pre-legislative Scrutiny Committee went on a couple of site visits. One of the most interesting visits that we undertook was to Blackpool, and another was to Great Yarmouth, of course. In Blackpool we could see the commitment of the council and the people to a super-casino. As a member of the Education and Skills Committee, I was impressed by the range of vocational courses being provided by Blackpool further education college ahead of the possibility that the super-casino might be located in Blackpool. There were not only good catering courses, but courses to train croupiers and so on. That was extremely positive and I hope that that facility will be used anyway, no matter what the final location of the super-casino.
	As well as examining the evidence, the Joint Scrutiny Committee considered the term "destination casino". Then we moved to "resort casino". I was quite happy with those definitions, but when we got to the definition of a "regional casino", I was less happy. I prefer the term "super-casino", as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) suggested, to the title "regional casino". Many, if not all, Members of the Joint Committee supported the principle of a super-casino on the basis that it was a way of regenerating a town on the periphery of a region that had few alternative strategic options available to it from a regional perspective. In that regard, Blackpool would have been an ideal choice. Many, if not all, members of the Scrutiny Committee would agree.
	Such a location would have the added bonus of potentially reducing significantly the possible social impact of problem gambling, because most people would have to travel some distance to visit the casino, rather than having it on their doorstep. The spin-off, in regeneration terms, would be the overnight stays that would result, providing a big multiplier effect in regeneration terms.
	As a former leader of Barnsley council before I entered the House, I take a keen interest in regeneration. Barnsley and Doncaster—the other town that I serve—are examples of the city regions model that is being developed in all the regions, with the aim of successful regeneration. Barnsley, for example, is on the periphery of the Sheffield city region and the Leeds city region. It is always more difficult for towns in such peripheral locations—the Barnsleys and Blackpools of this world—to be regenerated as successfully as big city centres such as Sheffield, Leeds and Manchester.
	In settling on Manchester, the Crow report placed too much emphasis on the need to be able to test the social impact of a super-casino, and not enough emphasis on regeneration factors and the multiplier effect that comes from choosing a location such as Blackpool. Paragraph 116 acknowledges that factor in relation to the Blackpool bid:
	"The fact that most customers would come from outside Blackpool and have to travel would be a deterrent to ambient problem gambling. The proposed central location for the regional casino appears to us to be a good one for it, and conducive to local regeneration".
	The super-casino represents a possible flagship regeneration project for a region. I would have thought that two of the major players in terms of regenerating a region would be its regional assembly and its development agency. Indeed, the report considers the opinions of those two main drivers of regeneration. Paragraph 110 says:
	"The North West Regional Assembly supports the development of regional casinos in Blackpool, Manchester and Liverpool, with their preferred location for the single regional pilot being Blackpool."
	Paragraph 111 states:
	"The North West Regional Development Agency 'strongly supports' the Blackpool proposal on the basis that it 'would help to restructure a much less diversified and weaker economy than its nearest rival in consideration, Manchester'."
	The Secretary of State said that we have to accept these recommendations en bloc. As a member of the Education and Skills Committee, I remember a guy called Sir Michael Tomlinson producing an excellent report on the future structures of the education system. The Government did not accept all the recommendations of that independent report, but cherry-picked. I would say to Ministers that we must be consistent as regards recommendations from the independent panels that we set up and ask for reports. We must accept their recommendations en bloc or cherry-pick—one or the other. We are not doing that at the moment.
	For my part, I am going to be consistent. I have major problems with the way in which the order has been handled, and therefore with supporting it as it goes through the House.

Iain Duncan Smith: I want to keep my comments brief. Over the past few years, I have found myself coming down firmly against any further extension of gambling in this country. I set up an organisation called the Centre for Social Justice and I am now engaged with the social justice policy group, which has been taking evidence on this issue. We have commissioned an inquiry into gambling, which will report in May, but some of the early findings make very worrying reading, suggesting that problem gambling is to get worse and will be worsened by the current process.
	I have great sympathy for those who have put in a bid, but speaking as a London MP, I can honestly say on record that I am extremely happy that London did not get any regional casino. Watching various Members legitimately trading comments about which was the better city, one could begin to see how divisive the process has become.
	One of the biggest and most worrying issues raised by our sub-group is the connection between debt and family break-up. I did not used to be so aware of it, but I am now, as the report shows that debt is the single biggest cause of family break-up. Family break-up in the United Kingdom is at record levels and when compared with every other country. We know that many of the problems in inner-city areas result from dysfunctional and broken homes and that one of the main drivers of debt is gambling, particularly among the lower socio-economic groups. I shall come back to that in a minute.
	Putting aside my objections to the increase in gambling that this order will continue, I would have to say with respect to Members representing Manchester that if we had to locate a super-casino anywhere I cannot think of a worse place than Manchester. There are already a number of casinos—10, I believe—and I am not aware that they have contributed massively to regeneration in that city. Let me go through some of the relevant figures.
	We know that Manchester has the highest number of robberies and the second highest level of vehicle crime among the four towns in the top 10 in that region. The same four make up one of the highest-crime cities. We know that 50 per cent. of the population are economically inactive and totally dependent on the state; that life expectancy for men is seven years less than the national average and four years less for women; that unemployment in the area where the casino is to be sited is 5.6 per cent. of the working age group compared with 2.8 per cent. in the country as a whole; and that 13.3 per cent. of the population of working age are on incapacity benefit compared to 4.5 per cent. in England and Wales as a whole.
	I make those points because our findings have shown an intriguing and worrying feature: problem gambling and socio-economic disadvantage are hugely linked. The figures boil down to the following characteristics of a typical profile of a problem gambler: someone who is male; who has a parent who is or has been a problem gambler; who is separated, divorced or a product of a broken home; who is likely to be unemployed, in poor health and poor housing; and who has low educational qualifications. The order's objective is to place a super-casino right smack bang into an area inhabited by people with all those serious problems.
	I simply cannot understand what this so-called independent committee was doing when it looked into the matter. It clearly failed to take into consideration any of those points. If we had spent a little longer and asked the many people who are now really worried about the increase in problem gambling in Britain, we might just have begun to realise the difficulties that are going to erupt as a result of the process.
	We also know from the report that we are working on that there is a close correlation between problem gambling and other addictive activities such as drug and serious alcohol abuse. I remind the House that, right now, the UK is in the grip of an alcohol epidemic. We have a very high number of alcohol abusers and it is rising. We know that the connection between children who imbibe serious levels of alcohol—last year about 5 per cent. of children under 13 admitted to binge drinking once a month—and drug addiction is almost certain. We know that gambling, alcohol abuse and drug abuse are closely correlated.
	I am particularly concerned about the sort of organisations that get involved in this level of gambling, and I must say to colleagues on both sides of the House that I cannot conceive of why we would want to get too close to many of them. The reality is, as we have seen from the behaviour of members of the Government, how insidiously corrupting so many of the people involved in this process ultimately become to those who are legitimately trying to seek some form of regeneration. We have seen that in relation to the proposals for the dome, and I guess that we shall see more of it as time goes on.
	The connection between problem gambling and other addictions is deeply worrying. More worrying in regard to the report that we have produced is the way in which the most vulnerable, including the very young, are affected. The recent BMA report suggested that age is now a determining factor in this addiction. The group most likely to experience problems with casino-based gambling consists of single unemployed males under the age of 30. Adolescent gambling in the UK is also a grave issue for concern. We have not begun to tackle the problems surrounding internet gambling, even as we begin to expand the whole idea of gaming through these centres. The BMA report mentions a number of studies that identify a figure of between 5 and 6 per cent. of pathological gamblers among adolescent fruit machine gamblers, and states that that figure is three times higher than that identified elsewhere in the adult population.
	I am now more opposed to this headlong rush into expanding gambling than ever before; I am very worried about it. Many decent, reasonable colleagues in the House are grasping at the idea of regeneration and at the huge promises that have been made, yet there is absolutely no evidence that these casinos will add anything constructive to the lives that people should and could be living, particularly in areas such as Manchester, which have serious levels of deprivation. Such a casino would be a disaster for that area. I wonder what has happened to us if we are genuinely considering regenerating and rebuilding our cities by placing this kind of nonsense in their midst to attract people into the most destructive behaviour in the most destructive areas. I shall vote against the order tonight because I now genuinely believe that this expansion is wrong in any cause.

Anthony D Wright: I want to return to the order before us today. This is not just about Manchester and Blackpool; it is also about the other 16 casinos—eight large and eight small. Great Yarmouth is to have one of the large ones, and I will certainly support the order.
	Like many of my colleagues, I was a member of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, and I endorse the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) that it was a good experience of looking at legislation. I want to put on record that my concerns related to the fact that the Committee was looking at resort casinos. The view was held universally across the Committee that we expected that to be the case. Contrary to the opinions expressed by Opposition Members, it was the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee that came forward with the proposal for the eight regional casinos, determined on a regional basis, that was put to the Government.
	I want to talk about the positive aspects of the order, and about the opportunities that I envisage for constituencies such as Great Yarmouth. Regeneration is already taking place there on the basis that we have received the go-ahead for the casino and for a new harbour scheme. Other people are now investing in the town, and we can already see a great renaissance there, compared with 10 years ago. Huge amounts of regeneration money from the Government is supporting the private sector money that is coming into the town. We see the casino as an opportunity in that regard, but the bids that are coming in illustrate that this is not just about the casino; it is about the other facilities that will be added to those attractions.
	On the Blackpool and Manchester issue, I have a great deal of respect and admiration for my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden). I understand their concerns and reservations about the order. I, too, would feel pretty aggrieved and I would certainly have wished the casino to have been in Blackpool. What I get annoyed about, however, is the political opportunism of the Opposition—certainly the official Opposition. They see an opportunity to give the Government a bloody nose. What they will actually do, however, is delay at best, and scupper at worst, the chances of others towns such as Great Yarmouth.
	It is great that the Opposition have had yet another change of heart. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) has indicated his opposition to gambling as a whole. I would therefore question the Conservative party's acceptance in 2001 of £5 million from Stuart Wheeler of IG Index. Given the Conservatives' new view, perhaps they will donate that £5 million to the Responsibility in Gambling Trust, run and chaired by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). Once again, double standards are being seen in the Chamber. I would like to think that Members would support the order, and accept the proposals considered by the other place to set up an independent committee to consider such matters in future.
	I reiterate that if the order is voted down, there is no surety that it will come back to the House. If we consider the previous initial evaluation, and the points awarded, we see that Great Yarmouth was awarded 54 points, Manchester 57 points and Blackpool 65 points. In the final evaluation, however, Great Yarmouth was pushed to the side to top the large casino ratings, while Blackpool was overtaken by Manchester. A number of other towns and cities up and down the country also had a different initial evaluation. Canterbury, for instance, initially received 51 points in the large and small casino ratings, but got nothing in the second evaluation. What would stop those towns and cities challenging the premise that towns such as Great Yarmouth were above them in the ratings? That question suggests to me that rejecting the order at this stage would set a dangerous precedent.
	I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood that I support the view that Blackpool would have been the best choice. Perhaps I say that because I also represent a seaside resort, but the evidence taken by the Joint Committee of which I was a member also supported that view. Although she will understand the reasons why I cannot vote with her tonight, I am sure that Blackpool will come back from this and still be one of the top holiday destinations in the UK.

John Greenway: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright), who was a distinguished member of the Joint Committee. As Great Yarmouth has been allocated a large casino, I can understand that he wants to see that development go ahead. I remember the visit to his constituency.
	I must confess, however, that I am disappointed and somewhat dismayed at the direction that policy on casinos has taken. It was my wish that the publication of two unanimous reports by the Joint Committee, on both the Bill and casinos, would enable both Houses to proceed with the implementation of the Gambling Act 2005 by consensus. If we are to have a policy that will last for 40 years, as the previous one has done, genuine cross-party agreement is critical.
	It is also important to understand that today's vote is not a rerun of the vote for or against the Act, but simply a vote on the order, and on whether we yet have sufficient information on which to make a judgment about the panel's selection. Some of us have been dealing with this matter for more than five years. The Minister for Sport and I probably agree about the need for closure: this issue has gone on long enough, and it is time for us to draw a line under it. I have spent most of the past five or six weeks suggesting that that is what we should do.
	However, I must make some criticism of my party. It was a huge mistake to insist on having just one pilot regional casino. I do not see how a research project, as recommended by the panel, can have only one pilot. The tensions that exist now stem from that judgment. There was an opportunity to have more than one regional casino, but the House seems to lack the necessary courage.
	I hear what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) says, and there are clear objections to expanding gambling in any way. However, resort-type destination casinos have been developed in other jurisdictions, and it is clear that we have missed a golden opportunity to regenerate places such as Blackpool, Cardiff and Glasgow, all of which were big bidders for the one available licence.
	I accept that problem gambling is an issue, and I shall say a little more about it later in my speech. The Minister and I get on extremely well, having worked together on many matters involving gambling and sport, but alarm bells rang loudly in my mind when I read the Merits Committee report. There is an obvious tension between ensuring that the statutory objective to protect children and the vulnerable was paramount in the panel's recommendations, and the panel members' apparent belief that they had to recommend a location that would provide a strong test of social impact. They interpreted that to mean that they could measure the problem gambling that resulted from establishing the casino. That complete contradiction flies in the face of what we have tried to do in promoting the Gambling Act 2005.
	That was of real concern to the Joint Scrutiny Committee, which recommended that the super-casino should be a resort destination casino drawing its clientele from an extremely wide area and providing a national—or, indeed, international—attraction. As a result, in our casino report published in July 2004, we recommended that the generic term of reference "regional casino" should be dropped and that the casinos should be called "destination resort casinos".
	At the time, that suggestion was dismissed perfunctorily by an official of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I am not even sure the extent to which Ministers considered it but, given that the Crow panel has said that a destination casino could not provide a social impact test, it seems to me that by calling them "destination resort casinos" from the start we could have avoided the problem that we have now.
	I make no judgment about the competing claims of all the possible locations for the regional casino. I am not looking for more work, but I am pleased and relieved that the Secretary of State has said that she is willing to reconvene a Committee. I may not be invited to be a member, but there needs to be a bit more clarity about what the Committee would be asked to do. What are the terms of reference? How will they be determined? Tony Banks, who died, and Richard Page, who retired, were members of the previous Committee. I am sure that we could fill those vacancies—the enthusiasm that the debate has revealed for the topic suggests that there would be several volunteers. However, if we reconsider the matter, I cannot believe that we would expect to settle the issue by simply having one regional casino.
	If the order is approved as it stands, we should realise that we would approve a location in Manchester, where, according to the panel's admission, there is a risk—some would say a serious risk—of problem gambling. My concern is that that is the opposite of the statutory objective to protect children and the vulnerable.
	The tax rate of 50 per cent. that the Chancellor announced last week calls the regeneration opportunity into question. The Joint Committee constantly asked what the tax rate was likely to be. It is critical in the equation for whether such projects make sense. The tax rate is bound to have an impact on what can be done in some of the small and large casino locations.
	A couple of colleagues referred to the fact that I chair the Responsibility in Gambling Trust. One of the issues that weighs heavily on colleagues' minds when considering whether to support the order is the potential for increased problem gambling. The trust has made huge strides in the past year since I became chairman in commissioning education, public awareness, research and treatment projects relating to gambling addiction. Time does not allow me to say much more about it, but I promise hon. Members that they need have no concern about the provision of help through counselling services, public information and education for the people who patronise the new casinos. We have achieved £3 million funding in the current year and we have been promised £4 million and £5 million from the industry for the next two years as a result of a seminar that the Minister kindly addressed. I am optimistic about the future, although I am sure that the tax rates that the Chancellor announced will create some difficulty in our funding.
	With a heavy heart, I believe that we need to examine the panel's comments more closely before we can conclude the matter. I hope that the reconvened Committee, which the Secretary of State announced, will enable us to do that and devise the right recommendation. If there is to be only one regional casino for the whole of the time that most of us are in Parliament—that is a considerable time for most hon. Members present; I have been here for 20 years and will probably not stand next time—we must make the right decision. What is wrong with taking a little longer to ensure that we get it right?
	If any colleagues put any constituents whom they know to have gambling problems in touch with the trust, we will do our best to help them.

Gordon Marsden: When I was a child in the 1960s, my parents used to take me to Blackpool, where trains arrived at the old central station every three or four minutes and when Blackpool could still attract the cream of stage, screen, TV and radio at the north pier shows and throughout the constituency. That was the golden age—if there was ever one—of the British seaside. However, like so many other seaside towns, Blackpool—perhaps more than others because we were always the biggest and, we argued, the best—suffered from slow decline and the gradual change in the structure of holidays.
	Dean Acheson once said of Britain after Suez that it had lost an empire and not yet found a role. Much of that truth is embodied in the predicament of British seaside towns today. The report that the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, which my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) chairs, recently produced on coastal and seaside towns provides eloquent testimony to that. It also eloquently outlines some of the resolutions that I and other hon. Members who represent seaside towns, including my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), who spoke so valiantly earlier, urged on the Government.
	That is why, for the past six or seven years, Blackpool has put all its feelings and every sinew behind the proposal for a resort casino. We did that not because we believed the insulting words of Professor Crow that it was a hand-out or a cure-all that would be dropped into our laps, but because we saw it as a catalyst. The mayor of Blackpool wrote only this week
	"Blackpool's proposals for its regional Casino would bring an estimated 2500-3400 jobs and £200-450m of capital investment associated conference/exhibition; leisure...and hotel uses in a small economy."
	With all due respect to my hon. Friends from Manchester, I have to repeat what the mayor went on to say:
	"Manchester's bid anticipates only 2,700 jobs...in a much larger economy with many alternative drivers for regeneration."
	That is the key. The regeneration and job-creation boost in Blackpool would be proportionately much greater than in Manchester. That was one of the factors about which the House of Lords Merits Committee specifically talked about. There we have it. That was our pitch. Of course, any panel was bound to disappoint someone. Of course, as Blackpool MPs, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood and I spoke up for our constituencies. How could we not have spoken up for the people of Blackpool who have given such tremendous support to the bid over the past six to seven years?
	There were 11,500 signatures on the petition. Those were from people not just in Blackpool, but across the north-west. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) is entering the Chamber. May I say that 400 people from Manchester signed it? The reason was that they saw the Blackpool bid as a bid for the whole of the north-west. Obviously, we were going to be disappointed whatever happened. However, what has fuelled the anger, the sheer determination and the dogged persistence since 30 January in this House, in Blackpool and in the north-west, has been the lack of coherence and accountability that went with the process and with Professor Crow's report. From the moment it was announced, there was criticism that the various elements of it did not add up. Crow failed to make himself available to a press conference. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood has already referred to his sneering remarks about managed decline. I sometimes wonder whether there may not be an afterlife for Professor Crow as a motivational speaker somewhere. I do not think that Churchill in 1940 or Mrs. Thatcher in the Falklands in 1982 would have thanked him for his observations.
	We hoped that we could turn to the Department for a review, but we could not. Why not? Because there had been no detailed scrutiny of the measure. The Secretary of State brought the measure and the panel's recommendations to the House six and a half hours after that report was received and said that she was minded to accept it. In a subsequent meeting, Members of both Houses, including members of the Joint Scrutiny Committee, who did such an excellent and eloquent job, asked her to review the situation before laying the order. She did not. It was left to the Merits Committee to drag a reluctant Professor Crow to the House of Lords, where the Committee echoed all the misgivings that had been put to it already.
	In a letter to their colleagues about the matter, Baroness Golding and Lord Lipsey said that it was a case of "sentence first, verdict afterwards". Indeed, the Merits Committee brought out strongly how that had happened. It said about Professor Crow and the regional casino that a number of respondents said that
	"to minimise the opportunity for 'casual' problem gambling the regional casino should not be located in close proximity to residential properties."
	That was supported by Professor Collins' memorandum, which stated:
	"an increase in problem gambling is likely to be inhibited...if casinos are located where they are unlikely to encourage people to gamble on impulse."
	The Merits Committee pointed out the lack of experience of members of the panel in the effects of social impact and regeneration. It said that in essence the panel was selecting candidates for research projects, and then said:
	"The House may wish to assess whether the...needs of the...process may have over-dominated the Panel's recommendations to the exclusion of more common sense issues of where there would be least harm or where the regenerative power of a regional casino might matter most."
	Finally, it said:
	"The Panel's interpretation of their sift criteria did not give high priority to the prevention of harmful effects to the community from gambling."
	In effect, the Merits Committee shredded Professor Crow's report, but with an elegant turn of phrase, as is the case in the House of Lords. It said at the end that it drew the order to special attention of the House on the ground that it gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House and
	"may imperfectly achieve its policy objectives."
	When I read that I was reminded of the famous remarks of Emperor Hirohito when he had to go on radio at the end of the second world war to announce the defeat of Japan and said that the turn of events had not necessarily turned out to Japan's advantage. That was the basis on which the House of Lords talked about Professor Crow's report.
	We hoped that there would be scrutiny in the form of discussion between the Department and the panel during this period, but in all the written questions that I have put to the Department on the issue I have seen no evidence of that. Indeed, the written responses glorify in the fact that there was very little communication between the Department and Professor Crow's panel, either before or after. Yesterday, in reply to a question asking how the panel reached its definition of social impact and what discussion there had been, I was told that there had been no discussion between the Department and the chairman of the CAP since the publication of the panel's report on 30 January. Does that mean that the DCMS was entirely satisfied with the process that the House of Lords Committee had said was narrow and flawed, or does it mean that it was so entirely hands-off that it abdicated all responsibility for the process?
	Professor Crow's report rejected all the advice of regional planners, all the implications, all the matters that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood referred to from the regional assembly and the regional development agency. This was at a time when the regional spatial strategy had been a key part of the DCMS's original strategy. It was one of the matters that dictated the timetable for this.
	This is not just a Blackpool matter; it is a north-west matter. We in the north-west have all worked together on this. It is not an anti-Manchester matter at all. I rejoiced when Manchester got the Commonwealth games and did such a fantastic job with them. My hon. Friend and I, as secretaries of a departmental Committee, wrote a strong letter to the chief executive of the BBC urging that it should move to Manchester and Salford, so let it not be said that this is an anti-Manchester thing. We did not see this as a parochial decision. But if, on the basis of this precedent, independent planners are allowed to drive a coach and horses through the planning recommendations in regions, what does that do for the process of regeneration and for regional strategies?
	All along, I believe that those of us who have been concerned about the order have tried to put forward alternatives. I have no desire to block large and small casinos and they would have to be reconsidered, as has already been said, in any order that came back. We suggested splitting the order. None of this has been properly taken on board. I have better reason than most in the House to know that the Secretary of State has worked hard over a long time to try to accommodate all the various elements of the twists and turns of the process. However, I say to her very gently this evening, as was said in the House about a Minister on another occasion in 1940, that she must not allow herself to be turned into an air raid shelter to shield the bad advice and incoherence of officials, advisers and unelected planners.
	That brings us to the heart of things. The reason why the debate has taken off is not just the fair play issues and affection for Blackpool, but that the matter goes to the heart of Government and parliamentary process, and is a key question for us as Members and Ministers. We have always had advisory panels—good and bad—and the Government do not have to accept their recommendations, as we saw only last week with the recommendations in the Lyons report on the bed tax. The debate has generated such concern because it taps into a vein of feeling across the House—that we are in danger of acting as technocrats and not as politicians or representatives. It gives me no pleasure this evening to point that out to the Secretary of State and to Ministers—nevertheless, it has to be said. I and many of my colleagues who have grave doubts about the process do not believe that the order or the recommendations of Professor Crow represent either our party policy or Government policy on the issue.
	A few days after the decision was made Steve Richards wrote about its implications in  The Independent. He did not talk about the rights and wrongs of the Blackpool case, but about the process. He said:
	"My concern is with the way decisions are made and who is held to account. Here was a classic example of an increasingly common phenomenon in which politicians are accountable despite having given their powers away to an anonymous panel."
	That is deeply and grossly unfair to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is her Department and her Ministers who have been receiving the anger of my constituents—not Professor Crow, who has gone back to the anonymity from which some of us thought he originally came. In those circumstances, it is right for me to say that I am genuinely grateful to my right hon. Friend for everything she has tried to do to accommodate the concerns of Blackpool and of people who are anxious about the process.
	I welcome the fact that there will be some form of scrutiny process, which was one of our central demands. However, as we have heard, that is something for tomorrow. I am talking about something for today—something that reflects on what has brought us to today. Ministers are not in this place simply to be messengers or rubber stamps, nor are we. I am grateful to the Secretary of State and to our Chief Whip for giving us time to debate the order properly, albeit not as lengthily as we wanted, but I am in no doubt about where my duty to my Blackpool constituents lies—it is to continue to stress my strong concern about the way in which the order was tabled.
	Parliament will decide. The Secretary of State has said that. Let us take her at her word and send back the order, and in doing so exert the power and reputation of the House to do the job for which we were sent here.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I now have to announce the result of the deferred Divisions.
	On the motion on immigration, the Ayes were 342, the Noes were 49, so the motion was agreed to.
	On the motion on immigration and nationality, the Ayes were 366, the Noes were 54, so the motion was agreed to.
	 [The Division Lists will be published at the end of today's debates.]

Anne Milton: This has been at times a passionate debate, with heartfelt contributions from both sides of the House. I am sure that over the past few weeks many hon. Members—like me—will have been bombarded by letters, reports and e-mails from Manchester, Blackpool and a whole host of organisations that are lobbying for and against different locations. However, the debate tonight is not about one location or the other; it is about getting the right decision. It is about Parliament getting the right decision and having the opportunity for full and proper scrutiny of the casino advisory panel's recommendations.
	There is one sentence in the Lords Committee report that resonates not only around the House, but among the many organisations that have concerns about gambling. The report states:
	"Adding maximisation of profit into the consideration...seemed to have a greater weight on the Panel's recommendations than minimisation of harm."
	The Government cannot feel comfortable reading those words when reducing harm and protecting the vulnerable were a crucial element of the Gambling Act 2005 and central to their aims.
	We heard a number of contributions. In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) raised the interpretation of the casino advisory panel remit, the concerns of the Church, the uncertainty of the outcome of the regional casino in terms of regeneration and social impact, the casino advisory panel methodology and the changing and shifting of the criteria as the process went on.
	The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) raised issues about the Secretary of State's last minute offers to her Back Benchers. Those offers do nothing to address the issues relating to the scrutiny of the order. He also spelled out the fact that, despite the Government's intentions to try to do something about the huge concerns over remote and internet gambling—I have heard Ministers address this matter before—clearly we still have no progress on that. Indeed, it is going to be difficult for any Government to do anything about remote or internet gambling.
	We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), who has spent a considerable amount of time on the issue. He pointed out that the Government's problems began some years ago. There is a sense that, because the issue has gone on for years, the Government simply want the decision over and done with, thus denying Parliament the opportunity for proper scrutiny.
	The hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) spoke highly of the pre-legislative scrutiny process but said, with some sorrow, that he could not support his Government tonight. He was joined by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who added their considerable insight to the debate. My hon. Friend pointed out the important difference between a destination casino and a casino that relies on ambient gambling, and the important difference in the impact that they have on local people and on the harm that gambling can do. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) pointed out early on that the Secretary of State had a choice tonight: she could have split the order.
	The hon. Members for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) delivered particularly passionate speeches, endorsing the message that we have heard from both sides of the House, which is "stop and look again". The comments made by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood were particularly fair and measured, bearing in mind her interest in a casino for Blackpool. She asked only for proper scrutiny, as she went to some lengths to explain. I am not quite sure what the Government Whips were promising her during the debate, but good for her for sticking to her guns, not just for her local constituents, but for Parliament. In contrast, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) persisted in telling us about Manchester's needs. The debate this afternoon is not about the needs of the people of Manchester; it is about—I say it again—proper parliamentary scrutiny.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) rightly pointed out that there is some uncertainty —[ Interruption. ]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but the sedentary comments that are being made across the House are not helpful.

Anne Milton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green pointed out that there is no certainty about the regenerative benefits. Indeed, that is why we are having a pilot—if we knew the answer, we would not have the pilot. My right hon. Friend has done a considerable amount of work on the impact of gambling on debt and family breakdown. It would be wise for hon. Members on both sides of the House to take note of the fact that there is a paucity of evidence about the regenerative benefits of casinos.

Ben Wallace: A charge has been made that we are taking opportunistic action tonight. Many Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members might well be voting against an order that would give them a casino in their constituencies, but surely that is not opportunistic at all.

Anne Milton: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is easy for Ministers to point the finger and say that we are being politically opportunistic. That does not hold any water, given what their Back Benchers are saying. Ministers should listen to what their Back Benchers are saying; they are simply asking for proper parliamentary scrutiny.

Tony Lloyd: To dispel once and for all the charge of opportunism, will the hon. Lady tell the House why the shadow Chancellor recommended Manchester as being the right bid, yet the shadow Cabinet changed its mind?

Anne Milton: I am not aware of the shadow Chancellor recommending anything. None of us is recommending anything. We are simply asking the Government to stop. What on earth is the rush? The Government have spent so long considering this issue that I fail to understand why they need to rush ahead now. If they were intent on listening to Parliament, they would listen to what they have heard tonight and in the previous few weeks: Parliament wants more time. There is no reason at all why they should not give Parliament more time. The Secretary of State and her Ministers could then be satisfied that Parliament had scrutinised the matter and that the decision was robust. Hon. Members, not least Labour Back Benchers, would then be a great deal happier.
	I urge right hon. and hon. Members, especially those who signed the early-day motion calling for more scrutiny, to vote against the order. Nothing that has been said in the debate has given any Member who signed the early-day motion a reason to change their mind.
	I reiterate that this is not about Blackpool or Manchester. It is not about the Secretary of State, or about voting with or against the Government. This is about Parliament. It is through us that Parliament can make the right decision that is based on proper scrutiny. We are in uncharted territory in which we face massive changes to gambling legislation, as the Government would admit. We will not and cannot support the order. I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially Labour Members, to join us in doing what is, without doubt, the right thing and give us proper parliamentary scrutiny.

Richard Caborn: I thank my hon. Friends and Opposition Members for their contributions. Many of my hon. Friends at least addressed the order that we are considering. My hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) and for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright), who served on the Joint Scrutiny Committee, made valid contributions, as did the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who ably chaired that Committee. Indeed, he guided much of our debate in the Standing Committee. Opposition Members' speeches sounded more like those delivered on Second Reading of the Gambling Bill—tomorrow's  Hansard will certainly show that to be true of the speech by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).
	I should point out to the hon. Member for North Devon—[Hon. Members: "East Devon."] I am sorry, I did not mean to inflict anyone on North Devon. I should remind the hon. Member for East Devon that the Gambling Bill reached the statute book in April 2005 —[ Interruption. ] Well, I did not know from his contribution whether the hon. Gentleman understood that the Bill had reached the statute book in 2005. It will become fully operational on 1 September this year, which is why the Executive will have the powers to intervene in internet gambling, which we did not have —[ Interruption. ] No, that is not the subject of the debate, but at the heart of the Gambling Act was the need to protect the vulnerable —[ Interruption. ] I am answering the claims made by the hon. Gentleman. The aims were to keep gambling crime free and allow fair betting. For the first time, those aims were on the face of a Bill on gambling.
	Why did we set up the casino advisory panel? Some Members have very short memories. I remember Opposition Members accusing the Deputy Prime Minister of fixing the decision and claiming that the dome would be the super-casino. I remember the hon. Member for East Devon saying in the House that the Deputy Prime Minister, following his visit to the United States, was fixing the decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) was accused of fixing, as was I, and my hon. Friend and I never met the panel so that we could never be accused of influencing it. The panel was given clear terms of reference.
	When members of the public are called on to serve in public office, to attack their integrity is—

Hugo Swire: That is outrageous.

Richard Caborn: I think it is outrageous to attack their integrity. Professor Crow's integrity has been attacked this afternoon, and I think that is disgraceful. The panel took evidence around the country for 16 months, in every area in which there was to be a casino, whereas the Committee in the other place took 16 hours. The arguments against the order have been predicated on a report of a Committee that interviewed two witnesses for 16 hours. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read the 150 pages of written evidence to the Committee, because he would find that different views were expressed.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier that this had been a transparent and open process delivered by a panel of professionals. When she made a statement to the House some eight weeks ago on the issue, the hon. Member for East Devon said
	"I thank the right hon. Lady for giving me advance sight of her statement, and I add my congratulations to Manchester on its success in securing the proposed regional casino. I and my party hope that that will bring the promised regeneration to that great city in the north-west. We also congratulate all the other successful bidding authorities."—[ Official Report, 30 January 2007; Vol. 456, c. 87.]

Ben Wallace: Will the Minister give way?

Richard Caborn: No, I will not.
	The right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), the Leader of the Opposition, chimed in:
	"It was the right decision that it went to the north and actually is going to have a regeneration impact. I've nothing against Greenwich at all, but, after all London did get the Olympics, and so I think that Manchester or Blackpool probably made more sense."
	[Hon. Members: "Or Blackpool."] Well, at least I give the full quotations: some people do not.
	On the podcast from the Greater Manchester chamber of commerce, we come to the crème de la crème: the shadow Minister for Manchester. [Hon. Members: "Who is that?] It is the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said:
	"There is clear evidence that it would bring in revenues and so on and could along with other things"
	regenerate the east end of Manchester. He went on to say:
	"I am delighted that Manchester won the competition."
	Several weeks ago, three senior Opposition Members welcomed everything in the report. What do they then do? They come back and predicate an argument on a Committee that met in the House of Lords for 16 hours.

John Leech: Does the Minister accept that some of us in this Chamber expressed concern about the decision that was made and the report given by the Secretary of State? Some of us oppose the Government not on the grounds of opportunism, but because we think that a casino in a residential area is inappropriate.

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman simply does not understand what the casino panel was doing. Contrary to what the hon. Member for East Devon has been saying, in paragraph 84 of its report the panel said of its remit:
	"Moreover, we note that the 2005 Act",
	which does not seem to have been referred to tonight,
	"sets out 'licensing objectives' related to preventing crime and disorder and the protection of children and young persons from harm. Not only are these considerations implicit therefore in providing the best test of social impact, but are also essential considerations regarding regeneration as we see it."
	That is what the Crow report clearly stated about its terms of reference. The panel, as it was asked, reflected the fact that the body that will police the 2005 Act, in which those basic principles are implicit, is the Gambling Commission. It is the commission that will take that responsibility.

Ben Wallace: Will the Minister give way?

Richard Caborn: No, I will not.
	Let me go back to what happened eight weeks ago, when we heard three of the most senior Opposition Members welcome the report. Last Friday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who happened to be working in New York, got a telephone call from the hon. Member for East Devon, in which he said "We have changed our minds. Why have we done that? Because the boss has told me to change my mind." The shadow Chancellor is running around and telling Manchester, "I'm very sorry indeed; I've got to change my mind." I have never seen such inconsistency, and these people are asking to be elected to government. They cannot even sort anything out in eight weeks.
	Quite honestly, I think that the hon. Member for East Devon has spent 50 per cent. of his time trying to dig himself out of a hole that he dug in his comments on 30 January. Does he want me to give way? I am offering to do so. I think that he has been trying to justify his actions.

Ben Wallace: Will the Minister give way?

Hon. Members: Give way!

Richard Caborn: Only to the organ grinder.

Hugo Swire: If we are revealing conversations between a Minister and a shadow Minister, I think that it is only fair that I should reveal that in a previous conversation, the Secretary of State was all for letting her right hon. Friend the Minister conduct this entire debate, because she was so terrified that she was being hung out to dry by her Back Benchers.

Richard Caborn: There are many things that the hon. Gentleman can accuse my right hon. Friend of, but running away from the Dispatch Box is not one of them. I can tell him that anybody who has got to work with my right hon. Friend knows that she does not run away from problems—far from it. In fact, she has created a few problems for me from time to time, if I may say so.
	Let me return to some of the questions that were raised. On destination casinos, I remind the hon. Member for Ryedale of what he said in his report:
	"The Committee is minded to suggest that the term leisure destination casino more suitably describes the Government's proposals and reflects the Committee's thinking."
	That is important, because there has been an argument about destination casinos. We worked in conjunction with the Joint Scrutiny Committee. I believe that we worked in concert, and that is why we got ourselves to this position. Nobody can deny that Manchester is a destination. It is the third most popular destination for inward-bound traffic in the United Kingdom, behind London and Edinburgh. In that sense, we worked with the Committee, and we were right to do so.
	I say to my hon. Friends that I have seen some political opportunism in my years in the House, but going into the No Lobby tonight would underline the position of a not only opportunistic, but unprincipled and tarnished Opposition who have used one of the best manoeuvres that I have seen in the House in many years. I ask my hon. Friends not to give that lot credibility by going into the No Lobby tonight, as the Opposition will do so out of nothing more than political opportunism. I ask my hon. Friends please to think again. We should remember what three of the most senior members of the Opposition said several weeks ago. They have reversed that opinion and have produced a piece of political opportunism. I say one word to my hon. Friends: principles. I ask them to vote for the order.
	 Question put:—
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 274, Noes 250.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That the draft Gambling (Geographical Distribution of Casino Premises Licences) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.

Hugo Swire: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have just had news from the other place that the Lib Dem amendment has been voted for, so the Government do not have the confirmation that they need in both Houses. Would it be appropriate for the Secretary of State now to make an announcement about what she intends to do?

Tessa Jowell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The order has been carried in this elected House, but we understand that it has been lost by a small majority on a fatal amendment tabled by the Opposition in the other place. Obviously Ministers will want to reflect on the outcome of that vote and to come back to this elected House in due course with proposals for taking this policy forward and ensuring that the important objectives of this legislation are delivered.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have a debate on a matter that has just been debated in this House. This House has made its decision; the other place has made a decision that has nothing directly to do with us. The Secretary of State has responded to a point of order in a way that I would hope is helpful to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will allow a point of order from the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) as he has some connection with this, but we will not have a general debate.

Don Foster: I am extremely grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendment that was successful in another place was in the name of my hon. Friend Lord Clement-Jones. It required the separation of the order that was before us into two halves so that some of it could go forward—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was trying to give the hon. Gentleman some latitude, but I am afraid that he has abused it. That is not a point of order.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not believe that there can be any further debate on this matter. It is not now a matter for this House—it is for the Government to reflect on what has happened. The House must await an announcement, which the Secretary of Secretary has undertaken to give. I believe that a line has to be drawn under the matter at this stage.

PETITIONS

St. George's Hospital

Lee Scott: I have a petition signed by 5,122 of my constituents. It is supported by the Government Member in my neighbouring constituency as well as me and the local newspaper, the  Ilford Recorder.
	The petition states:
	The petition of the residents of Ilford North.
	Declares that we, the undersigned, being residents of Ilford North, deplore the consideration being given to the reduction of services at, or the closure of, King George's hospital.
	The King George's hospital provides vital medical facilities for Redbridge residents. Any cutting of services runs the risk of putting lives at risk and leaving vast numbers of residents without local medical attention.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons takes a note of their objection to the reduction of services and the possible closure of King George's hospital and ask the Government to act accordingly.
	The Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Wharfedale Hospital, Otley

Greg Mulholland: I wish to present a petition on behalf of 5,029 people who are concerned about the future of services at Wharfedale hospital in Otley.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons,
	The Petition of residents of Otley and Wharfedale, the surrounding area, and others
	Declares the petitioners' serious concerns about the future of the Wharfedale Hospital and services at that hospital, following the sudden closure of Ward One at the Wharfedale.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Health to use her powers to prevent any further cutting of services at the Wharfedale Hospital and calls upon her to provide assurances that the future of the hospital is secure.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.,
	 To lie upon the Table.

Harthill School

Stephen O'Brien: Nestling in the hills of Cheshire's spectacular mid-Cheshire sandstone ridge in my constituency is the vibrant community of Harthill and its surrounding villages. It has a wonderful local school. Under a programme called TLC—a misnomer, as it is anything but tender loving care; it is the transforming learning communities programme of the local education authority—the school is trying to meet the surplus places requirements of the Government's ill thought through strategy, which is putting at threat an absolutely outstanding school.
	The petition of more than 840 residents of Harthill and the neighbouring villages—almost 100 per cent. of the people eligible to sign—states:
	The Petition of the residents of Harthill and neighbouring villages declares that the decision of Cheshire County Council to consider the closure of Harthill School is wrong and that by doing so the Council would deprive the community of a viable and much valued and high achieving educational and community asset whilst giving rise to overcrowding in schools in surrounding areas. This is at odds with the commitments made by the Department for Education and Skills to seek to 'strengthen the place of schools at the heart of their communities', and the new duty placed upon local authorities to 'promote choice, diversity and fair access to school places and school transport' as stated in the Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons shall urge the Department for Education and Skills to reconsider the decision to consider the closure of Harthill School and to direct Cheshire County Council to allow it to remain open.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Ambulance Coverage (Forest of Dean)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Huw Irranca-Davies.]

Mark Harper: The Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), will probably be feeling a sense of déjà vu because it was almost a year ago that I called an Adjournment debate in the House on the same subject, and the hon. Lady was answering on behalf of the Government, as she will this evening. My reason for holding the debate last year was to raise local concerns about the performance of the local ambulance service, the then Gloucestershire ambulance trust, which has since merged to become part of the Great Western Ambulance Service NHS Trust.
	Last year's debate followed a specific set of local incidents that highlighted the lack of ambulance cover in the Forest of Dean, which was of great concern to my constituents. We focused in particular on the trust's use of a matrix system to allocate resources, the result of which was to take ambulances out of the Forest of Dean and other rural parts of the county and to focus on the urban centres of Gloucester and Cheltenham.
	Since then, one of my towns, Cinderford, has been given a higher priority in the matrix, which is a positive feature. Unfortunately, however, that has not improved ambulance response times in my constituency. In last year's debate, I expressed my concern about the impact of the merger on the services that would be delivered in rural areas, and the Minister said that the merger was occurring
	"against a background of weak performance in relation to response targets from all three trusts."
	Most importantly, she went on to say:
	"We are confident that, while recognising the local issues, larger trusts will deliver a better, more responsive, more efficient service, which people have a right to expect."—[ Official Report, Westminster Hall, 7 February 2006; Vol. 442, c. 229-32WH.]
	Unfortunately, the position has got worse since then. In my constituency at that time, about 48 per cent. of category A responses—that is, calls dealing with life-threatening cases—hit the Government's eight-minute target. A few months later, at the time of the merger, that figure had gone up to 53 per cent. That was still pretty appalling, but at least it was better. Since the merger, the performance has worsened, and the figure is now only 45 per cent., which is unacceptable. When we compare the performance in my constituency with that of Gloucester and Cheltenham, we find that 85 per cent. of the responses in Gloucester and 82 per cent. of those in Cheltenham are within the target eight minutes. That disparity is unacceptable. My constituents pay their taxes just as those in the urban areas of the county do, and they deserve excellent services.
	The concerns that I raised last year have turned out to be closer to reality than the assurances that I received from the Minister. My reason for raising the issue again, a year later, is to keep up the pressure on the Government and on the new ambulance trust to provide better services for my constituents. The Minister will be aware that I raised the matter at Prime Minister's Questions on 21 March. In response, the Prime Minister said:
	"In fairness to the ambulance and paramedic services in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I think that he will find that they will tell him that they have improved considerably over the past few years. Massive investment is going into our ambulance services and paramedics, although of course we always have to improve on it."—[ Official Report, 21 March 2007; Vol. 458, c. 810.]
	Unfortunately, performance is not improving, and I have written to the Prime Minister to point out that fact. I suggested that he might like to use the opportunity presented by this debate to set the parliamentary record straight, and the Minister now has the opportunity to do that. The Prime Minister's answer did not accurately characterise the situation. I am sure that that was inadvertent and due to the briefing that he had received, but it clearly did not accord with what the ambulance trust has said.
	To be fair, the ambulance trust is grappling with one of the issues that the Minister and I discussed in our debate last year, namely, the growth in the emergency call volume, which is rising by about 10 per cent. a year, and in the Great Western Ambulance Service NHS Trust by about 13 per cent. I am not clear—and, to be fair, I do not think that that trust is either—about exactly what is driving those increases. It cannot be the case that we are suddenly experiencing many more emergencies. Indeed, I have received anecdotal reports from the paramedics that my constituents in the Forest of Dean are quite reluctant to call 999. On the whole, when they do so they have a serious problem. They do not tend to call an ambulance at the drop of a hat or in inappropriate circumstances. The evidence that I have seen suggests that that happens less in my constituency than in the urban areas. I would like the Minister to tell the House why the Government think that the call volume is rising. If it carries on rising at 10 per cent. a year without any increase in resources, it will be difficult for the ambulance service to cope.
	Anecdotally, paramedics have suggested to me that the change in out-of-hours services—whether real or perceived by constituents—has led to an increase, particularly at night, in parents with sick children and people looking after elderly relatives in distress calling an ambulance because of the lack of a speedy alternative response. I would be interested to know whether the Government think that that analysis is accurate, and what they propose to do nationally to address the growing call volume.
	Because of the difficult geography of Gloucestershire, with the River Severn running through the middle of it, the interaction between the Great Western Ambulance Service NHS Trust and those operating in Wales is also an issue. In my constituency, Sedbury, which is the other side of the River Wye from Chepstow, is quite a long way from where the ambulances are based, and also has a significant number of emergency call targets missed. The area is difficult to cover from the rest of Gloucestershire, and I would be interested to know the extent to which liaison between the Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust and the Great Western Ambulance Service NHS Trust is possible and can be increased.
	To inform myself better, I spent a 12-hour shift with a paramedic crew last year. Watching their performance on the front line, I was impressed by the skill with which they handled calls, and by the effort that they put into responding quickly and safely to them. They are put into a difficult position when, through no fault of their own, they turn up after a significant period of time—between 20 and 50 minutes—and have to bear the brunt of the dissatisfaction of understandably distressed relatives or patients who expected the call to be answered more quickly.
	Another issue raised last year was the extent to which savings would result from a merger of the three ambulance trusts, and whether that money would be available to invest in front-line services. The Minister will be aware that deficits in the NHS were a significant issue last year. My understanding is that some of the savings from management reductions, rather than being invested in the front line, have effectively been used to plug deficits. Will the Minister comment on that?
	The change undergone by the ambulance service has also had an impact on the feelings of ambulance staff, particularly in Gloucestershire. The evidence of meetings and letters, and of a blog that they have set up, suggests to me that a number of them are unhappy and disillusioned with the way in which the system is being managed. Let me share with the Minister one or two quotations from the staff blog, which, if she is interested, can be found at greatwesternambulance.blog.co.uk.
	One contributor to the blog recognises that
	"The expected £1.6 million saving that we—
	the paramedics"—
	"and the public were told would be re invested into front line services, has disappeared into the PCT"
	deficit.
	Another contributor refers to being
	"Fed up with driving from one end of the county to the other",
	rushing from job to job. A particularly interesting quote relates to the matrix system of allocating resources. Its contributor says:
	"We were doing so well before the matrix came along then it all went down hill like Keanu Reeves on roller skates. It's never been any good since. Go back to the system that worked...Why do we have a two tier service? City and Town residents get a marvellous service, even the ones that like their alcohol. But live in any of the rural areas and you're forgotten and not cared about. Waiting half an hour to an hour for an Ambulance to arrive is not acceptable so why allow it?"
	Finally, a contributor to a discussion about improving ambulance response times by implementing a satellite navigation system, asks:
	"So Sat Nav makes you drive 20 plus miles in under 8 minutes??"
	There is a certain amount of disappointment among the staff, and that is very worrying. In an organisation undergoing significant change, where staff deliver front-line care, it is very important for management to take people with them as they introduce that change. Otherwise, the organisation will not be successful.
	My constituency is a rural part of the county. My constituents pay as much in tax as people in cities and towns but get a significantly inferior service. However, they are reasonable people: they know that it is difficult to deliver certain public services in rural areas, and they understand the challenges involved. Even so, the general view is that the disparity between the provision in Gloucester and Cheltenham and the provision in my constituency is unacceptable.
	On a positive note, over the first few months of this year the ambulance trust has introduced emergency care practitioners. I have talked about them before—I am due to meet some of them in my constituency next week—and it will be interesting to see whether they can help turn things around. They should enable faster response times by being based more locally in the forest.
	Last week, an interesting article entitled "On the Road with New Wave Medics" appeared in my local newspaper  The Forester. The reporter, Jenni Silver, found that emergency care practitioners could speed up response times, and she wrote that the presence of a practitioner
	"twice...helped ambulance bosses reach their target times for Category A calls, and both times the ambulance wasn't needed."
	The emergency care practitioners were able to assess the situation in a way that allowed better management of resources.
	Obviously, I very much hope that that innovation will improve matters. The use of emergency care practitioners has only just started, so we do not yet know what effect they will have, but the article also discovered that ambulances from the Forest of Dean were
	"having to wait outside Gloucestershire Royal Hospital for up to two hours to drop off patients on a Sunday."
	I accept that a Sunday is not necessarily a peak period, but the article shows that accident and emergency units at the hospital are running at capacity, and that there is little slack in the system.
	The ambulance trust is also trying to use the fire and rescue service, and others, to deliver community responders. The scheme has been running for some time, and does not seem to have improved performance to any great extent. I support the idea, but my caveat is that it must be in addition to the existing service. It should not be used to replace ambulance cover where that is appropriate, and nor should it be used to massage the figures.
	I turn now to performance measurement. The current system for measuring response times is misleading because it overstates, rather than understates, the ambulance trust's performance. That may be surprising, given the appalling performance that I have outlined but, at the moment, the clock starts running when three pieces of information have been received—the nature of the complaint, the address of the patient, and a contact number.
	Sometimes, all those pieces of information will not be gathered until the ambulance has arrived. Last year, there were 45 incidents in the Forest when, according to the statistics, an ambulance responded before it was recorded as having been called. The statistics may look pretty appalling, but they actually show an artificially improved reality.
	Next year, the call-connect system will be introduced, with the clock starting the second that a call is received. That will lead to an immediate downturn in the statistics, but they will give a more accurate representation of the trust's performance. Most constituents start measuring the wait for an ambulance from the minute that they get through to the call centre after dialling 999. Although the new system will provide more realistic figures, the performance will look even worse than it does at present.
	It is clear that ambulance coverage in the Forest of Dean is not good enough. The matter was raised last year with the Minister and, despite the assurances, the service has gone backwards. There appeared to be some significant problems with staff being taken through the changes. My constituents deserve, from the taxes that they pay, equitable service with the rest of the county. I hope that we will experience a dramatic improvement in performance in the next year, otherwise I assure the Minister that, with the leave of Mr. Speaker, we will be back at the same time in the same place to discuss exactly the same subject next year.

Caroline Flint: I congratulate the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) on securing the debate. I do not know whether it is good or bad that the same Minister who replied last time is here again today. Obviously, I was keen to read the previous debate to ascertain what had changed between then and now so that I could provide as good a response as possible.
	The hon. Gentleman raised several specific issues, which I shall try to tackle, but I shall ensure that information on some questions is provided by those responsible for the services in his area.
	I pay tribute to the staff in Gloucestershire, especially the staff of the Great Western Ambulance Service NHS Trust, for the hard work they put into delivering local services. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the comments on the blog site. Clearly, it is important to listen and I hope that those who manage services are examining the site to ascertain whether their substantial engagement is being shared and understood by those who deliver the services.
	Since we last debated the matter, considerable investigation and planning of different ways in which services could be provided to deliver a better service across the piece has taken place. The specific challenges that the Forest of Dean presents have been better appreciated. Providing a better service for the future is also being considered—I shall go into that in more detail shortly.
	I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point that some of the timings appear to have gone in the other direction since last year. However, having examined the previous debate in preparation for today's debate, I believe that efforts have been made to tackle the problem. Although the current figures clearly need to be improved, I hope that I can give some examples that will reassure the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that the direction is now the right one.
	Ambulance trusts are the first and often the most important contact for the 6 million people who call 999 each year. The range of care that they provide is clearly expanding to take health care to patients who need an emergency response, and to provide urgent advice or treatment to patients who are less ill and care to those whose condition or location prevents them from travelling easily to access health care services.
	We all appreciate that the sort of services that ambulances provide—and others such as emergency care responders and community care responders—are a long way from those that were available 20 years ago. People who need treatment want it to start as soon as the ambulance arrives. They do not necessarily want to wait until they get to hospital for treatment. That is important.
	Clearly, resources are also important. Spending on ambulance services has increased, with ambulance trust expenditure reaching £1.45 billion in 2005, compared with just under £620 million in 1997. That is a rise of 135 per cent., which has helped improve services.
	The Government have set a standard that at least 75 per cent. of all ambulance trust 999 calls from patients with immediate life-threatening conditions should have an ambulance respond to them in eight minutes. I am pleased to tell the House that the planned resources for the Forest of Dean area for 2007-08 will mean an increase in staff from 29 to 39 full-time equivalents. There will be an increase from three ambulances working 24/7 in 2006-07 to four daytime ambulances and two night-time ambulances in 2007-08. Six emergency care practitioners will also be provided. I hope that that shows that what I said in the previous debate about planning and using resources is happening. The plans will take effect from the next financial year, despite some of the challenges posed by deficits in the area. As we know, performance has improved over recent years, but we cannot be complacent. We also know that 98 per cent. of patients are overwhelmingly satisfied with the care that they receive.
	I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern that response times in his constituency to immediately life-threatening calls are currently too low. The Department collects data at trust level rather than by geographical area. Ambulance trust directions issued in July 2006 required each trust to ensure that information in respect of its performance is recorded, collated and published for the trust and each of the trust's local areas. That ensures a level of not only transparency but accountability, which is important.
	Our latest published figures for the trust indicate that, as at 2005-06, 74 per cent. of immediately life-threatening calls were met by the Great Western Ambulance Service NHS Trust, but as the hon. Gentleman has said, the response rate in the Forest of Dean has been low. It appears that it has gone in a slightly different direction from the lower figures that he mentioned in the previous debate. However, there are plans to raise performance across Gloucestershire to the national target levels by September this year.

Mark Harper: I was particularly concerned, having looked at the figures for the Great Western Ambulance Service NHS Trust across the three areas—Wiltshire, Gloucestershire and Avon. The most worrying thing in the move between 2005-06 and 2006-07 is that the performance has deteriorated across category A, B and C areas. It does not seem that there is a problem just in the Forest of Dean. There is a problem across the trust in meeting its targets.

Caroline Flint: I am sure that those responsible for services in the area are mindful of that. That is why I would like to explore as part of my contribution what is taking place not just in the Forest of Dean but in the area as a whole.
	The hon. Gentleman said that the new system under call-connect will give a greater sense of what is or is not happening at the most local level. Changes to clock start will be implemented from 1 April 2008. That is important. It will mean a better experience for patients, shorter waits for the phone to be answered and help to arrive and, I hope, improved outcomes, meaning more lives will be saved.
	Ambulance trusts have embarked on a programme of service improvement. I understand that the Great Western Ambulance Service NHS Trust is changing its resource deployment. I mentioned earlier the increases in staff, ambulance provision and emergency care practitioners for the Forest of Dean, but of course that is being looked at across the trust as a whole.
	In rural areas the trust is moving to embedding ambulance practitioners within the Community, and I am advised that the Forest now has dedicated emergency care practitioner resources in Lydney. A second scheme is due to commence later in 2007 in Cinderford. Deployment of that type of resource allows for increasing numbers of patients to be treated nearer to home, avoiding long and unnecessary journeys to hospital. It also enhances the quality of the experience for the patient. Emergency care practitioners are also able to forge closer links with local general practitioners and community health teams further to enhance emergency and urgent care in communities.
	The changing model in urban areas will see increased use of ambulance practitioners as solo responders, deployed proactively to identify priority locations. That increase in solo capacity will reduce the need to utilise Forest-based resources in the urban areas. That point was of concern to the hon. Gentleman in the previous debate. I think that that has been taken on board as a way of improving and modernising services. That will support the improvement required in the Forest, as well as in the high-activity areas. That model has commenced in the past two weeks and has produced the anticipated improvement in response times, with Gloucestershire reporting over 75 per cent. for three consecutive days last week. Clearly, we cannot be complacent about those figures and we must recognise that there are still issues around the low performance rate in the Forest of Dean, but that indicates a step in the right direction.
	Resources are important. To support trusts with improvements such as those, the Department made £25 million in capital available to trusts this year to enable them to fund service delivery and infrastructure changes to go further and faster in improving performance. Underpinning all that is a developing work force who are being used to the best effect, and who are at the very heart of realising true transformation in the way care is delivered.
	Driving that forward requires a different blend of skills and experience. For some staff, that will involve change, but it is about recognising the changes that are necessary to deliver the best service for everyone, not forgetting that sometimes staff may need those services and will want the best for themselves as patients, as well for the patients whom they serve. But again, contributing to that draws on the creativity of front-line staff.
	Community responders are clearly also a way of saving lives. New ways of working and modernisation can contribute to further improvement. Community responders are trained in basic life support and first aid and equipped with defibrillators. With emergency care practitioners, they can do more faster, and in some cases better.
	In order to improve first response performance, the trust has launched two community responder schemes at Coleford and Lydney in partnership with Gloucestershire fire and rescue service. I am informed that those schemes went live on 6 December 2006. They are trained in special access techniques such as line rescue, which further enhances the joint capability within the Forest. I understand that community first responder teams have also continued to expand with a further 15 responders being trained this month. The two teams that I mentioned in my last speech have gone live in Cinderford and Newent, so I am pleased that something that I said last time round has actually happened.
	The trust is also concentrating on business and leisure facilities, as well as schools, in order to embed life-saving skills and automatic external defibrillators into these environments. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a good way to consider how we can differently provide better services for the future, particularly in places such as the Forest of Dean. Community defibrillation officers in the former Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire area were awarded funding of £90,000 over a three-year period, and received 201 automated external defibrillators.
	The reconfiguration of ambulance trusts has meant that we are in a position to start accelerating planning and delivering a better service. It will give trusts the capacity and capability to improve standards and deliver world-class services. However, delivering change on the scale that is needed takes time. NHS ambulance trusts have more money than ever before with 135 per cent. more resources than in 1997. Now that the new management teams and structures are in place I am confident that services will improve. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will look in detail at what planning has already been provided for and what changes are already happening, and keep them under close scrutiny to ensure that they deliver the outcomes that he cares so strongly about.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the matrix system, which also came up in our last debate. That has proved helpful, but parts of it have clearly acted against some of his concerns, particularly about rural areas. An improved computer-aided dispatch system went live today and automatic vehicle location systems will come on line in June. That will provide better real time evidence about the volume of calls and the demands on different services, which will allow the planners better to match what is needed in different parts of his trust's area. Additional response cars have been provided in Gloucester and Cheltenham to support the matrix system and prevent resources from being constantly called out of the Forest of Dean. Again, that was a concern in our last debate, since when progress has been made, which I am pleased and reassured about.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that improvements have been made at both national and local level. The dedication and skills of ambulance staff have made that possible and their continued efforts will turn into reality the improvements that we aim to continue to deliver.
	I encourage the hon. Gentleman to continue his support for his local NHS services in their commitment to deliver and maintain high quality service, and join with those who have to make the positive argument that change is not always bad. It is often for improved services and opportunities for staff to engage in a way that they may not have been allowed to do or able to do in the past.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eight o'clock

Deferred Divisions

Immigration

That the draft Integration Loans for Refugees and Other Regulations 2007, which were laid before this House on 21st February, be approved.
	 The House divided: Ayes 342, Noes 49.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Immigration and Nationality
	That the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2007, which were laid before this House on 15th March, be approved.
	 The House divided: Ayes 366, Noes 54.

Question accordingly agreed to.